Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 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 delete. Sandstein 12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Hascheff

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

Hascheff is a run of the mill member of the Reno City COuncil. He comes far short of the notability guidelines for politicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Indeed.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These four article (Sharon Zadra Dan Gustin Dwight Dortch Jessica Sferrazza) should be nominated too.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Wikipedia only confers an automatic presumption of notability on city councillors if they serve in major metropolitan world cities with populations in the millions, which Reno is not. Absent that, a city councillor has to be able to pile on a serious volume of sourcing to get them past WP:GNG — but this article, as written, is relying exclusively on a single primary source (the city's own website.) So it's a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage.131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:52, 29 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. I don't know if it's a hoax as much as it's something that someone came up with one day and posted on Wikipedia. While the overall "Shakespeare didn't write squat" thing isn't new, the idea of there being a specific X message is. I can't see where anyone other than Vidor ever wrote about this, using this specific term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare-X Message

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

Unsourced original research Drm310 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I've nom'd this for speedy delete (WP:G3). Chris Troutman (talk) 03:04, 21 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) 10:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This biography of a living person has been without any sources for over 4 years. We should remove all statements as unreferenced violations of BLP policy. Beyond that, even if the article is accurate, Grierson is just a local talk radio show hosts. No indication he rises to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just noticed Grierson is dead. I guess the BLP issues do not apply. Still it is an unsourced article about a person who appears to just be a local broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does, for the record, make the claim that he hosted a nationally-aired network program on CBC Radio in the 1980s. So he would certainly pass WP:NMEDIA on that basis...if the claim were properly sourced. I agree that it's definitely deletion bait in this state (unreferenced, and edging seriously into personal reminiscence by a colleague), though. I'll take a spin through ProQuest to see if there's enough referencing to salvage this with — so I'll come back to give an official "keep" or "delete" in a few minutes once I know what the prospects are. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's enough about him to do a salvage here. Keep, I'll work on cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some cleanup for both tone and referencing now done. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per referencing added by User:Bearcat. PWilkinson (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT.(Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job of sourcing notability by [User:Bearcat|Bearcat]]. I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 27 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 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Taschner

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

A 16-year old student who had done three short films. Unable to find any reliable, independent refs about him. Says he studied at the USC film school. I don't think he did that as a college student, but as part of the summer programs for high school aged students. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing Deletion

The proposed article meets and exceeds the Wikipedia standard for Living Persons: I am a script writer. I do not know John Taschner, but I know about films and how entertainment projects are made and recognized. The biography should be included in Wikipedia as the person has accomplished remarkable recognition in the film industry despite their age. Indeed, in Hollywood where youthful talent and ideas are the currency, the younger age of the director coupled with his steady stream of award winning films makes his talent even more desirable on notable. While the original posting did not meet with Wikimedia standards the biographies of living people, the substantial improved, expanded, cited, and rectified material is far above Wikipedia standards, especially in comparison to most listings of film personalities that rely heavily upon other sources. The materials are neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verified in most every detail. Indeed, every line of the article regarding international film awards is supported by nationally or internaotnally recognized publications, news stories, and highly regards industry publications. The citations and footnotes to every factoid in the article use of “high-quality sources” that are the reference standard of credibility in entertainment industry. Moreover, mainstream press and media are cited with relevant footnotes. While the first posting by another person apparently not familiar with Wikipedia standards did not meet with the Wikipedia standards, the most recent version submitted by this Editor (respectfully, I submit the editor who removed the updated, improved, and recitified article may have done so without careful examining the cites and footnotes and could have done so with comments about a living person that could be viewed as harmful or violating Wikipedia deletion policy) meets and exceeds the Wikipedia standard. However, with the removal of the revised and rectified article, this editor has trimmed the article to include only material that is cited and verified with the highest quality sources. Thank you for another chance to post with the improvements. Many, many actors and other entertainment personalities with international accomplishment are age 16 (or younger). This 16 year old director has been recognized for producing the top short film in the world at many festivals. Hollywood is a young person’s marketplace and some journeyman directors complain they cannot get work after age 30 as the marketplace and younger actors demand young directors. This biography describes a director of international accomplishment many times over …with fully documented recognition from the global film industry. This biography notes a succession of winning numerous international film festivals in the genre of short films against international competition (from more than 19 countries in at least ne of the cited articles). The number, breadth, and caliber of the award received by the person in the United States and Europe more than qualify the biography and the article is now rectified with extensive and full citation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castemke (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions for User:Castemke (contributions). (1) You say above: This 16 year old director has been recognized for producing the top short film in the world at many festivals. Remind me again: which festivals are these? (NB not best student film, third best film, etc, but best film.) (2) Most of the material in the article is by you (primarily in this edit). But now you write: The citations and footnotes to every factoid in the article use of “high-quality sources” that are the reference standard of credibility in entertainment industry. Are you now suggesting that many of the claims are mere factoids? -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:BIO. Is not regarded as an important figure by his peers/successors. Is not known for originating any new concepts. Has not created any significant works that are the subject of other works. Additionally there is a lack of in depth third party coverage about the subject. AlanS (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the original article in good faith. The subject is to my view noteworthy . However, I have read to comments about the subject who is a minor and realize the minor is being gravely impacted in their reputation without their involvement or representation. It seems right and fair immediately delete the material to avoid unintended damage to a minor. Not being versed in wikipedia rules or process, thank you for help prompt deletion to avoid harm to the minor subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanford2000 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the Creative professionals requirement of being cited by peers. Awards are nice, but this person needs to be make a widely known work or written about, besides saying his film won an award. Perhaps in a few years he will be widely known. Frmorrison (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming he got all the claimed awards for his films (which I am not sure is veriafiably sourced), he has been recognized as a good student film maker, high quality among those under 17. Well, we create articles on people recognized as good filmmakes, without regard to age etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Clearly non-notable at this time. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:55, 28 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) czar ♔ 09:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup and Europa League records and statistics

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

fancruft, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK The Banner talk 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS; we do have European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as that is the top-level club tournament in Europe and one of the biggest in the world and probably merits and article, whereas the Europa League does not. Giant Snowman 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there should be some editing here as some of the content is ridiculously crufty, but there are some encyclopedic sections in here. The Europa League and UEFA Cup competitions are sufficiently major competitions to have an article like this - the fact that there is one higher competition in Europe is a poor reason for deleting this. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might not be the premier European comeptition, but GS's comment is slightly disingenuous, it is still one of the premier football competitions in the world, so that statement needs some considerable clarification to carry any weight! Would suggest moving to List of UEFA Cup and Europa League records and removing some of the cruft elements. The existence of Category:Sports records and statistics and its large number of articles indicates that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a futile argument, there is clearly consensus across multiple sports that a wide variety of statistical articles are indeed desired. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fenix down. European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics is a good example for a similar competition of what this page could be. Nfitz (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Fenix Down and Michig.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is certainly a sufficiently important competition for us to have a statistical article. I agree with comments above that significant work is needed but that is for outside this AFD. It is now for talk-page discussion as to how this page should be structured. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:49, 28 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 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Cowperthwaite

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

Not WP:NOTABLE and last AfD, although nomination was withdrawn, indicated that he personally was not notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - agree that this person is fails to be notable in any way. Surprised it's lasted so long. Parabolooidal (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 14:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This John Cowperthwaite is not notable, but there is a Sir John Cowperthwaite (economist) not in Wikipedia yet who is. I am One of Many (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the cars he has designed are notable but I have not been able to find sufficient material to meet WP:BIO. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:11, 28 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. No valid reason for deletion, Plus article lists and cats are completely different. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of think tanks in the United Kingdom

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

A category can do the job of this article. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN - lists and categories go hand-in-hand. Do you have a policy-based rationale on why this should be deleted? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid argument put forward for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and nom has not put forward WP reason for deletion. A list of think tanks in the UK is a valid topic and one a reader would put in a search engine. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 21 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S4 League

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

This is a video game that simply exists as far as I can tell and does not pass WP:GNG. A cursory search in Google shows no news articles and just a bunch of unofficial social media sites. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to delete every other MMO or Multiplayer Game that "simply exists" Simonmana (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles on MMOs tend to have reliable sources that are used to verify that it is notable. S4 has none and I can find none online. Not even Kotaku.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then if you want il support the deletion of it since its own wikia SITE, multiple mmo sites covering it, its own play search database, its competative scene and YT videos and Twitch Streams arent enough.Simonmana (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being passive aggressive and provide these sources already. However, they must meet the requirements of WP:RS. If none can be provided, then the page will be deleted. Anything can have its own Wikia, what are these "MMO sites", what the hell is a "play search database", any video game can have a competitive scene, and who cares if it's on YouTube or Twitch. Put up or shut up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say a couple of things:

.Stop insulting and be reasanoble.
.MMOBomb
.MMOHut
.The player database
.http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/435/S4-League.html/ MMOrpg]
.Free to Flay
.Metacritic
.This isnt my favourite game i dont even consider it a good one.I just dont like people messing with things they shouldnt and i like even less when they think they are right and when you show them proof they ignore it. Simonmana (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your sources and they are all secondary, but I'm not sure they support notability. Can you find an article signed by an author? That would be helpful.--Nowa (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other but Metacritic does not help here. The only reviews listed are user reviews which don't count towards notability. It has mo metascore meaning that it has not been reviewed by any of the outside publications (magazines websites) that Metacritic covers. I'll leave analysis of the other sources to someone more familiar with the subject.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also check GameRankings and they don't list any reviews either.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are primary sources. ~~All sources are dead links or redirects to the company home page.~~ Hence there is no evidence of notability (which needs a reliable secondary source) ~~or even support for the article content.~~--Nowa (talk) 23:39, 20 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) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put it up twice for speedy deletion apperently it is notable so the speedy deletion was removed.I guess case closed.Simonmana (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you read the guidelines for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is limited in scope. The fact that an article is ineligible for speedy deletion in no way suggests or establishes notability. Safiel (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read them and if it really didnt have any notability it should havebeen removed yet it stands so make up your minds Simonmana (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DELETE. There are a number of deletion methods based on specific criteria. Just because an article survived a speedy deletion template doesn't mean it's immune to deletion. Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True an article not meeting A7 is in no way an endorsement of notability. First the scope is limited to specific topics and this is done to limit the burden of AFD. Video games are not one of the topics covered by this limited scope. Secondly, the standard for A7 is a lower bar than notability meaning that an article that rises above that bar could very well not rise above the bar of notability and in those cases AFD is the place to make that call. To put it another way the admin that will close this (or likely anyone) is almost certainly not going to conclude that this is notable simply due to A7 being rejected.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Unable to find any reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So will it be deleted or are you gonna extend this thing longer ?Simonmana (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions typically last at least seven full days. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet all are currently in support of deletionSimonmana (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An admin may come in and WP:SNOW delete it immediately. Or reliable, third-party sources may be published and added to the article in that time. It's happened. Woodroar (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And with only two !votes this isn't going to be closed any time soon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welp no one would oppose so it willSimonmana (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would reconsider my "delete" if several good secondary references were added to the article.--Nowa (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS, fails WP:V, fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing that appears to meet WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I looked at metacritic and, well, 0 critic reviews. Now, I am open to revising my vote if someone presents Korean sources, perhaps? PS. User:Simonmana - how about you ask for your work to be preserved through WP:USERFY? Maybe in a while the game will receive proper coverage and then you can restore it to mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Zero reviews at Metacritic is pretty telling that searching isn't going to solve this one. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted at this point. Simonmana (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, judging by the responses, it will most certainly be deleted once the 7 days has passed and an uninvolved admin reviews the discussion. It's just a matter of time, but it'll likely be very soon considering its not specifically complicated discussion to review. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 27 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 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. – Liverpool F.C. rivalry

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

This rivalry seems too insignificant, too recent and has too little coverage to merit an article at present. If you take away all the background info and stats from this article you're left with a couple of sentences, and perhaps that material may be added to the main club articles. If we allow articles on every pairing that flares up a little over a few years we would have too many. See also the comments on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Unless others have serious reasons to find it worthwhile to keep this page, I totally agree with filelakeshoe's comments up here. The reason I started this article is that an article request for this was made, and that I got aware that some rivalry arose a couple of years before. However, the rivalry what it is nowadays (and the short time that it lasted) does not seem enough to spend an article about it. I'd propose to merely drop a (referenced) sentence at the Rivalries sections of the Chelsea and/or Liverpool articles, stating that the teams met 24 times in 5 years. Kareldorado (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a notable rivalry and does not merit a separate article. Mention the minor issues on each team's individual page, sure, but nothing more. Giant Snowman 07:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above per nom and GiantSnowman. This is not a WP:N rivalry. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY such rivalries are generally considered non-notable unless they pass GNG. Yes the two teams have played each other a significant number of times, but that does not constitute a rivalry in itself. there is little in existence of any substance on a rivalry itself outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special about this rivalry. Szzuk (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I follow Liverpool quite closely and I have seen no evidence that this is a notable rivalry. Crucially, it does not meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:23, 28 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 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conni Marie Brazelton

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

Does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 24 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 Austin Independent School District. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mendez Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school. This should be redirected to Austin Independent School District as is the long-standing tradition for middle schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Redirecting a large number of articles without discussion based on an essay is bad editing, IMO.--TM 15:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would point out that redirection is a clear policy recommendation. Read up on it. AfD can only succeed if participants are aware of policy rather than voting or commenting from the hip. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Independent School District as per the long-standing precedent for middle schools and primary schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by 1,000s of AfD closures over many years. OUTCOMES may be an essay 'page', but it is one that does not express any opinion; it merely REPORTS - quite accurately - on well established and recognised practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Independent School District per nom and Kudpung above. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:54, 22 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. Sandstein 12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scruffy The Cat

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

Google news search brings up one recent article from the Boston Herald but that's all. Seems to fail WP:BAND Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Criteria #1 - the were written up in the Chicago Tribune (November 28, 1988, Chris Heim), in the Boston Globe (June 10, 2011, Jonathan Perry), and in the Philadelphia Inquirer (July 15, 1987, Robert Gordon). They were in the Rolling Stone 1987 "Back to School" fashion article- August 27, 1987, pg 180.Kevingt (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Kevingt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep:~~ Criteria #2, their album Tiny Days was a top 5 album in the college album charts and on several critics top 10 lists.Kevingt (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Kevingt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Incorrect -- criterion #2 is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Critics' top ten lists (or the Rolling Stone "top ten college list", which it actually was) are very far away from being the official national chart. Ravenswing 07:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above. Only one !vote is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Correct -- Scruffy the Cat meets criterion #2. Their second LP "Moons of Jupiter" spent eight weeks on the Billboard 200 chart, peaking at number 177. This is the official national chart for albums. [1] Salemhistorian (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Correct -- Rolling Stone prints the Billboard national music chart information and the CMJ national college album chart information. In addition to them peaking at #177 as Salemhistorian pointed out, they were in the top 10 of CMJ's college album charts. CMJ (College Music Journal) is a national publication.Kevingt (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Correct -- Their song "Moons of Jupiter" from the album Moons of Jupiter was #23 on Billboard's "Alternative Songs" chart. It spent 6 weeks on the chart.[2] Kevingt (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Point no. 5 in the criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The band released two EPs and two albums on Relativity Records -- which has its own Wikipedia article -- and Relativity is a subsidiary of Sony Music. Sony Music, by the way, is the one who has just released the 38-song Scruffy the Cat retrospective.Nightmareishere (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extremely loose criteria of WP:MUSIC notwithstanding, a subject must always be able to meet the GNG, and WP:MUSIC's criteria do not constitute a guaranteed pass. Ravenswing 01:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Incorrect -- GNG requires that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." They have independent articles published about them in the Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, just to name a few. So that in addition to the "loose criteria" of WP:MUSIC (they had 2 albums and 2 EPs on a major label Relativity and a retrospective on Sony/Legacy; they were also placed in rotation on MTV's 120 Minutes (national rotation on music television network) more than qualifies them for inclusion.Kevingt (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing:: the article has been improved, am hoping you'll review to reconsider your !vote. cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable band, just an ill-advised nomination due age of the subject and lack of quality of the article. "Google search only brings up one article" is not a valid argument for a band popular in the mid 1980s. Scruffy the Cat, its a keep, alright.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if they'd opened up for The Del Fuegos, they would have been even bigger, but they are a notable band.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time improving the article, I think its now much easier to see the band enjoyed meeting WP:GNG long before wikipedia existed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BAND #1/WP:GNG. Source examples include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn - due to the one delete !vote above, I am unable to close this per normal processes. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:23, 30 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 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Lanken

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

Procedural nomination. This was tagged for AFD by an anonymous IP number who then walked away without actually completing the nomination process, so I'm filling it out for them. I was actually the original creator here, at a time (2004) when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards were very different than they are now — at the time, as long as her name appeared in the booklet credits of the albums she was credited with, that was all the notability and sourcing you required. But those definitely aren't the standards that apply now — and in reality, I agree that by contemporary standards she doesn't have enough notability under WP:NMUSIC, or enough independent coverage in reliable sources, to actually qualify for her own standalone WP:BLP (even the external link to AllMusic is just a list of credits, without any actual biographical information.) So my only defense is that she was a legitimate entry at the time — but things have changed around here, and she's a delete as things stand today. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searched 10 SERP pages, only found a mention in the NY Times, not enough to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. I've left a comment on the article's talk page, which is all that an anonymous user can do.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Looks like you got this article on track to be deleted, so I dare say you are not powerless.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate articles for deletion without registering an account so that you can gain the privilege of starting new pages, you really should learn about our WP:PROD process instead of continually initiating AFDs you can't actually complete. (I see from your talk page that you've done this at least seven other times before this.) It would save everyone — yourself included — a lot of hassle, because incomplete AFDs don't actually cause anything to happen unless somebody else chooses to complete the process for you. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above discussion. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:31, 23 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 Aircraft cavern. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern airfield

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

Content fork of Aircraft cavern The Banner talk 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note nl:Overleg gebruiker:FFA P-16/blockmsg. The Banner talk 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Cavern Airfield project is an important part of the swiss air force history, the cavern airfield is unique in its kind, and it was important project who paved the way for the later aircraft caverns of the swiss air force. But it should be not confused with the aircraft cavern, it is differend. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But its not a dubble text. The cavern airfield was a project, it was not built. In this project the aircrat should start inside the mountain trough a tunnel like runway. the aircraft caverns (the article woh is said as dubble) are built and locatet on diffrend geographical locations. by aircraft caverns the aircrat did not start inside the caverns, the aircraft have to be pullet out by aircraft tugs and have to taxi to the runnway. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, never built, rejected concept. Edison (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison. Only because it was not built it is not non-notable. it paved the way for the aircraft caverns. also if something is/was just a project it is notable enough for wikipedia for eg Porta Alpina. FFA P-16 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is not useful. Beside that, it seems that Porta Alpina is still an active proposal. The Banner talk 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable for the swiss air force category. Beeing just a project is no argument to delet it. There are hunderts of examples on wikipedia from the project of an soviet nuclerpowerde aircratfcarriert to buildings and aircraft North American XF-108 Rapier. If this one don't can bee keept, then merge it but without loosing informations.FLORAKO (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) User is a confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Florako, because I do not believe that you are a genuine editor, I have started a sockpuppet investigation against you and mr. FFA P-16: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 The Banner talk 10:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aircraft cavern. It's a never-realized project for a much bigger version of the same, a Cold War pipe dream. No opinion about whether the project is technically notable, but probably yes, because there is a lot of (print-only) German-language literature about almost every aspect of Swiss military history (spoiler alert: it's mostly about bunkers). However, the article does a poor job of indicating that notability, and really it is not so significant that it can't be covered in a section in an article. Sandstein 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@he Banner, well its nothong wrong to ask people (and Friends) for support no mather how well they speak english (also people who are good in english have a lot of knowleg about swiss Military topics).14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but with four confirmed sockpuppets on the Dutch Wikipedia I get highly suspicious. The Banner talk 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner no problem i can understand this. at nl.wiki they didn't acceptet even such minor changes like update the fleet numbers. a word to the porta alpina, the train tunnel will be go in use that is clear, but the porta alpina project (the underground train station) is dead it would be too expensive to build this after the train tunnel is in use (may i should point this out in the english wiki (in the german it is). I am for keeping this page, but if it ends up with deleting ,i hope some of the informations will be merged with the aircraft cavern article and don't get lost. I usualy work only on pages in relation to the swiss military or swiss aviatic. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I can severely understand that they do difficult over block evasion with IPs and specially created sockpuppets. The Banner talk 20:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nonsense. We dreamt of such a thing as children. Of course military dreams like children but the planning cannot have been advanced to even a sketch. Author admits, he does not own the reference that possibly mentions this rumour.--Anidaat (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources ist quite explicit about the matter, by the way, mentioning: The myth that everyone is guaranteed to hear is that Swiss combat aircraft could take-off directly from the cavern.UNO ZERO ZERO, page 259. Have fun --Anidaat (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an interesting idea but not of note for a stand-alone article but worth a few words in Aircraft cavern at the most. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aircraft cavern anything that might be useful. If nothing else, a redirect is warranted here, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that there might be something salvageable in this article that may be of use there. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:33, 30 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 16:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Glenn

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

Glenn is a professor of education and a former candidate for elected office. As a politician he is not notable, getting under 2% of the vote in a primary election for governor. As an academic his contributions seem to be just run of the mill, nothing to make him notableJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nothing here constitutes evidence of notability under either WP:NPOL or WP:ACADEMIC, and nothing here is properly sourced enough to claim WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Unusually low publication record for a tenured professor. No indication of wider impact in his field. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:18, 29 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 16:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton College

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

Article of unclear notability. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Wikicology (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ".com" "college" with absolutely no indication of notability. It apparently does exist as a small office in a small, single story building using Google maps on satellite view. Likely just an online diploma mill. I am One of Many (talk) 06:36, 27 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Moran (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies him as notable under any other rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ambassadors are not inherently notable, but I don't think that's the same as to say that ambassadors are inherently non-notable. This one is on his fourth ambassador-level post, from a not-insignificant country (UK) to another not-insignificant country (Switzerland), which I think makes him significant, though perhaps not rigorously notable in the strict application of WP rules. More for amusement than anything else, I've added a couple of references to the article. Anyone with an open mind about ambassadors might like to watch a clip about the BBC Ambassadors series, which Moran was consultant to, here. Stanning (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oxford University Press thinks he's notable (he's included in their Who's Who). That's good enough for me. Pburka (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, which specifically says that precedent is that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I am not convinced that the sources used meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on how an Oxford University Press publication might fail WP:RS? Pburka (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  ...also, WP:POLITICIAN says that ambassadors aren't covered by that guideline, nothing more. Pburka (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject isn't a poltiician – he's a career diplomat. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply. Stanning (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka The publication you cite is self-published. "Who’s Who includes autobiographical information" Per WP:SELFPUBLISH it is not a reliable source.

Stanning Perhaps WP:Politicians does not apply, but that like the other special policies are intentionally low exceptional requirements for special populations to be included. This person does not meet general notability guidelines. He does not meet the closest applicable low-standard guideline. I still say delete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry: Please read the article Who's Who (UK). It's not self-published. "Inclusion has always been by prominence in public life or professional achievement." Stanning (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not self published, the entry in that book is the subject's own self description, which is also problematic. The book you cited is the original and has some good marks on its reputation, but in my opinion, all Who's who listings are dubious. If it had been a person writing about their own work in a newspaper, or an interview in which a person talked about themselves while being broadcast elsewhere, it would not be enough of a source to establish notability. See Who's Who scam for more information about these kinds of books. I still say delete unless better sources are identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry: You still seem to misunderstand the role of the UK Who's Who. Yes, the entries are primarily the subjects' own self descriptions, but there are two important points: (1) the descriptions are fact-checked, not blindly reproduced, (2) you can't buy your way into the UK Who's Who, so that your claim about "Who's Who scams" is irrelevant. People are selected for UK Who's Who on gounds of notability. Unlike the many knock-offs it's a trusted source, routinely held in library reference sections. Flaming Ferrari, the nominator, opines that an entry in UK Who's Who doesn't count for Wikipedia, but in my opinion it's at least an indication of notability. I still say keep on the grounds given in my first comment above. Stanning (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanning It is not my place to evaluate this Who's Who more than I already have. If it is so commonly used, then I would expect it to be questioned by others just as I have. If you feel strongly about this source draft an explanation about it, let's post to WP:RSN, and I will help you set up an RFC so that now and for the future we can have a collected body of opinion about using this work in notability discussions. I am not comfortable making this judgement alone. The source is odd as compared to usual sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 20 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, Sandstein 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a discussion here about whether the UK Who's Who is a reliable source and it seemed to be accepted that inclusion is independently and reliably done. This arose from a very lengthy discussion here. To me their inclusion standards are generally quite a lot higher than here. In Who's Who (UK) I see WSJ quoted as saying "an entry in Who's Who 'really puts the stamp on eminence on a modern British life'" (but WSJ is just a rag, isn't it?). However, and it is quite a big however, once they decide to include you then you draft your own entry. Downright falsehoods hopefully won't get by but you can omit embarrassing stuff. So the entry may well not be NPOV. So I think this and Debrett's People of Today (the latter being stronger on fact-checking?) establish notability but with a bit of doubt about verifiability. The FCO stuff can't establish notability but will be fine for fact-checking. So, all in all, I think these sources add up OK. Thincat (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - as per discussion above. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an ongoing debate, but in the opinion of many of us, ambassadors of major countries are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appointed ambassador between two economic powers, he is inherently of interest to an encyclopedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 26 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. SpinningSpark 19:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Mutton

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a municipal politician in Coventry. The city is not large enough to confer automatic notability on its city councillors, and it's one of the many English cities where the Lord Mayor is a purely ceremonial role that rotates annually among city councillors rather than having any executive authority in its own right — and the sourcing here consists of one reference in which he's only briefly named in a news article which is fundamentally about his successor as Lord Mayor rather than about him. So he doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability for either role under WP:NPOL, and the sourcing isn't strong enough to put him over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - specifically to Bearcat (talk · contribs) who has created somewhat of a strawman by focusing on the "Lord Mayor" as councillor, and ignoring the fact that he was leader of the Labour Party group within the council. Because Coventry is an urban area, it has tended to favour Labour, so being far from being "Lord Mayor" on a rotational basis, he was "Leader of the Majority Party", and therefore the most important councillor politically, for a significant period and this does have something going for it that is conveniently ignored by the nomination. In terms of WP:POLITICIAN, the result is marginal, and may depend on sourcing to news articles; the result will be far closer than the open-and-shut case presented erroneously by Bearcat (talk · contribs). The presentation of such an argument doesn't really inspire confidence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a city isn't large enough to confer automatic notability on its city councillors, then being leader of the majority group on council doesn't make him any more inherently notable than any other city councillor — and if enough substantive coverage of him can actually be added to get him past GNG, then he'll get past GNG regardless of whether he was leader of a council bloc or just a regular councillor. So no, I didn't "ignore" or "strawman" the distinction — it simply doesn't make a difference either way. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By an extension of that logic, the leader of a country is equally as notable as any old MP. This clearly is an argument that is anything but intelligent or logical. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike city councillors, all MPs are always notable enough for articles under WP:NPOL regardless of whether they were a Prime Minister or a backbencher — so that distinction doesn't actually impact anything either way either, and hence there's nothing unintelligent or illogical about it. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what you might be failing to grasp is that notability is not a dichotomy between "notable" and "unnotable" but a cline with grey areas (this does unfortunately seem to be a common misunderstanding). A leader of a dominant political group for a significant period is more notable than a councillor who isn't a leader or there for a significant period. Such leaders have been known to receive significant honours (e.g. as CBEs and knighthoods (although not in this case)), and such are in one of these grey areas. It would be better to acknowledge this than presenting the false (and patently ridiculous) case that "all councillors are equally unnotable". Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" on Wikipedia is a function of the degree of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be provided about the person, not an inherent property of the person themselves. We've never accepted articles about city councillors, except in an extremely narrow range of metropolitan world cities — and we've never had a consensus to accept councillors in cities outside of that range just because the councillor held a special title (such as "deputy mayor" or "leader of a political party or faction") within the council. If the city isn't large enough to confer automatic notability on all of its city councillors, then the only way any city councillor (deputy mayor or not, leader of a dominant political grouping or not) qualifies is if you can add a volume and range of sourcing that gets him over WP:GNG completely on his own steam, per NPOL's provision for "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." If the necessary volume of sourcing were present, I would have let this go under GNG — but there's only one source here, and it isn't even about him. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well please try to make your mind up and be consistent Bearcat (talk · contribs). In your nomination the expressed reason to delete is that he's extremely unimportant, down to the level of only being "a common and garden councillor" - when it's pointed out to you that this isn't actually true as he's more important than that, you try to pretend that this is irrelevant. A better person would have accepted their error and moved on. However, you have now tried to change your original argument about importance and instead frame your argument around "coverage". Well of course, coverage is partly a function of importance, and there are some sources available (WP:BEFORE requires that you look). Also, to address another point that you keep going on about, Coventry is a fairly large city (it's not quite top 10 in England but it's close), to pretend that that too is unimportant is either a continuation of the attitude of the original nomination in which inconvenient facts are conveniently ignored so that you present a strawman case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the one making up strawmen here. Almost everything you're saying here is a complete misinterpretation of the facts of either what I said, or of Wikipedia policy, or both. Let me summarize this one more time: Wikipedia's long-standing consensus, as documented at WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, is that city councillors are only granted an automatic presumption of notability in a narrow range of internationally famous world cities with populations in the millions (the textbook UK example is London.) A city with a 2011 census population of 316,900 does not fall inside that narrow range, so a city councillor in Coventry is only notable enough for a Wikipedia article if he specifically gets past WP:GNG as an individual — he is not entitled to keep a Wikipedia article that's based on only one source which isn't even principally about him, but merely mentions his name in passing as a predecessor of the person the article is actually about.

And it doesn't matter whether they're a "garden variety councillor", a "leader of a dominant political bloc within the council", a "deputy mayor" or a person who got to step into the "everybody gets a turn" rotation of a ceremonial and non-executive mayoralty — they still have to pass WP:GNG in their own right, or they don't get to be on here. Even Wikipedia's consensus about mayors doesn't boost him, because it applies only to directly elected "executive" mayors and not to appointed or rotated "ceremonial" mayors. My point has been the same all along: Coventry is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its city councillors under Wikipedia's consensus about how big a city has to be to confer notability on its city councillors, so he has to pass WP:GNG in his own right to qualify for an article on here — but this article, as written, does not demonstrate that he passes GNG in his own right. Sure, Coventry is large enough that it could absolutely be kept if the sourcing were beefed up enough to get him past GNG — but it's not large enough that he's automatically entitled to keep an article on here just because he was a city councillor, even if that article only cites one actual source.

I've been consistent all along in this discussion — talking about whether the volume of coverage passes GNG or not is not a "change of tactic", because kindly note that I referred to the volume of coverage vis-à-vis GNG right in the initial nomination — and I'm not "strawmanning" anything or "ignoring" any facts that actually make a difference in this situation. You're the one making up stuff that isn't consistent with Wikipedia's established consensus on articles about city councillors, not me. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion veers off from content and sources to users' intent

No. If you go back to the (hint it's above), you'll find you misrepresented (deliberately or not) the facts, then when this what pointed out to you, you first tried to pretend the facts weren't relevant, then you switched your argument to talk about coverage rather than importance (which was the focus of your original argument). The only thing Bearcat (talk · contribs) has actually been consistent about is the illogic of some of your arguments and the inconsistency with which they were presented. It matters not whether the Leader of the Council is directly elected by a popular vote or indirectly elected by councillors who were themselves elected by popular vote because they're still the Leader of the Council. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument right from the beginning has been consistently the same: Coventry is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL — that "privilege" only exists for cities with populations in the millions — and so Mutton's ability to qualify for a Wikipedia article is entirely dependent on whether he personally passes WP:GNG as an individual in his own right. Which has not been demonstrated by this article as written — it cites only a single source which isn't even about him — and there's no claim being made here that entitles him to anything less than "enough sourcing to pass GNG". And that's exactly what I said in my original nomination. I have not "changed" my argument at any point, I have not "misrepresented" any of the facts, and I am not being "illogical" or "inconsistent" about anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently can't even read your own writing, Bearcat (talk · contribs), here's what you said: "it's one of the many English cities where the Lord Mayor is a purely ceremonial role that rotates annually among city councillors rather than having any executive authority in its own right". This is clearly and irrefutably framing by selective omission of facts (the largest being his being the long term leader of the majority party on the council) combined with innuendo and framing the argument in false terms. When this was politely pointed out to you, you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge your own mistakes.

Moreover, you continue to contribute to the innuendo by complaining about "lack of sources" when such sources can be found on the Internet if only you bothered to look. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, yet again I have addressed that point already: the long term leader of the majority party on the council is not automatically entitled to a higher presumption of notability under WP:NPOL than any other city councillor, but rather still has to pass GNG in his own right as an individual. I made no "mistake" of any sort; as I've pointed out the fact in and of itself simply is not relevant to the question of whether this article is keepable or not. If he gets past GNG as an individual, then he does so regardless of whether he was a party leader or just a "garden-variety" councillor — and if he doesn't get past GNG as an individual, then having been a party leader does not entitle him to less than a GNG-satisfying level of sourcing. The position does not entitle him to an automatic keep on the basis of a single source which mentions his name in passing while fundamentally being about somebody else — he still has to pass GNG as an individual to qualify.

And for the record, I am Canadian, and thus do not have the necessary expertise in Coventry's municipal politics to write or source any substantial improvements to the article. If somebody who does have the necessary expertise wants to save the article, they're absolutely more than welcome to do so by adding those improved sources you say exist — I do not have the necessary background knowledge about the city and its political structure and its notable issues and controversies to do it myself, so it is not my responsibility to delve into a referencing and content improvement project which I would almost certainly screw up rather badly. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (talk · contribs) - emboldeing you claim doesn't make your statement less false. Clearly and irrefutably, the leader of a council is more powerful (and therefore more important) than the typical councillor. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman bingo! I didn't say anything about the level of power and importance that a leader of a council has or doesn't have within the council in principle — I said that under WP:NPOL, Wikipedia does not extend a presumption of appropriateness as a topic for an encyclopedia article to city councillors of any description, party leader or not, if the resulting article is not reliably sourced enough to properly demonstrate that the councillor passes WP:GNG in his own right as an individual. Not the same thing at all. Bearcat (talk)

Erm, no you didn't Bearcat (talk · contribs) - the main thing you referred to that was being a mayor was unimportant but this was a red herring (probably deliberate). I think this is sufficiently obvious by now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate and I'm taking you to WP:RFC if they don't stop immediately. Other than that, however, it's EOD, because you're still making up your own strawmen to argue against and not engaging honestly with what I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat (talk · contribs) - I think you'll find that I have spent a lot of good faithing on you. I originally allowed you the opportunity to admit your mistake and correct yourself; however you denied that you had done anything wrong and added further untruths into the mix, including falsehoods personally directed at me. This has led me to the conclusion that you deliberately and purposefully misrepresented the original case, above. I stand by everything I say, always and without exception. An RFC on Bearcat (talk · contribs)'s behaviour might be appropriate as I'd like to see what other articles he's lynched with lies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made a "mistake", I have not "lied" or "misrepresented" anything, and I do not have a pattern of "lynching" articles with "lies" — I might find my opinion to be in the minority on occasion, just as everybody else does, but I have never listed an article for deletion for any reason other than an entirely good faith assessment of whether the article, as written, was properly compliant with our inclusion and content policies or not. I'm not engaging this discussion any further in this venue; take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#John_Mutton_AFD. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local councilor / mayor of no note. The article has one ref which constitutes 'news', I googled him and found nothing. Given the discussion above (which I didn't read) I have no intention of adding further to this discussion. Regardless it is a pretty obvious delete from where I am sat. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the reason given above for deletion was essentially a barefaced lie, as anyone can comprehend that the leader of the majority party on the council is more important than any old councillor. Furthermore, the suggestion that he doesn't meet WP:GNG seems entirely hopeful and not based on fact; I suggest that the Internet news search required by WP:BEFORE was either not performed, performed incorrectly, or was performed and then lied about. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LIARLIAR, WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep If you think the leader of the majority party on the council is more important than any old councillor, why not find reliable sources to support your claim? It is your obligation to find sources, not the nominator's.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike my !vote for the sources found.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:NPOL and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a search on HighBeam and I was surprised at the number of newspaper articles on him. There are over 1400 articles alone in the Coventry Telegraph over the years. I added 10 sources to demonstrate both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.I am One of Many (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere! I'd be more than happy to withdraw this if the actual substance of the article were expanded to go along with the sourcing — so far, we still just have the same two sentences as before, with all of the new references just racked up on top of them instead of supporting any actual expansion of the content. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any sources about him? Not having a HighBeam account myself, I read what I could of the sources linked in the article and they really only mention him trivially. Woodroar (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to pick out sources that illustrated his political role, but not being from that part of the world, I don't really know what is politically important. There are a number of articles in the Coventry Telegraph that go into some political depth, but the large number of articles is a bit daunting. I am willing to spend some time sorting through articles if somebody is interested in expanding the article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article currently tells us that "John Roderick Mutton (born 20 September 1947) was the Labour group leader on Coventry City Council until May 2013, and a former Lord Mayor of Coventry, England." If I didn't know better, I'd have to assume that the article was telling us that he was Labour leader from birth. Clearly he wasn't - which makes me wonder whether the obvious omission of the date he became leader is due to the fact that we don't have a source for it. Which in turn might well suggest that the position isn't really that notable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A leader of the Labour group on a council the size of Coventry is certainly notable, as has been demonstrated by the discussion, and sources via Highbeam, while I was asleep here in the UK. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were from that part of the world, I'd have a better idea of what is politically important or not. It looks to me from the sources that came up in HighBeam that he is at least very politically controversial. I'll see if I can narrow down the search and find an article that discusses his political history. I am One of Many (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Example this is fairly typical of the articles I see, but I have found a search term to add picks out more biographical articles. I am One of Many (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The subject's page on the Coventry Council website states that he has been a councillor since 1984, Leader of the Council from 2003 to 2004 and 2010 to 2013, leader of the opposition from 2004 to 2010 and Lord Mayor in 1997/8 - while the source is obviously primary, I would regard it as reliable (for verifiability) for these council career details. While none of this meets any of the automatic criteria of WP:NPOL, the criteria are supposed to reflect whether topics meeting them could be expected to meet {{WP:GNG]] after a more in-depth search for sources than an AfD period typically allows. Bearing this in mind, I find the idea that a councillor recently elected in Birmingham (population 1.1 million, 120 councillors) is automatically notable but one of 30 years' standing in Coventry (population 330,000, 54 councillors) with exactly the same formal powers must be presumed non-notable unless fully proved to meet WP:GNG somewhat odd but acceptable in that lines have to be drawn somewhere. But assuming that being leader of an English council (with powers equivalent to those of an executive mayor, if somewhat less security of tenure) of a city the size of Coventry is not at least indicative of notability strikes me as perverse. And User:I am One of Many has gone at least a long way towards demonstrating that WP:GNG is indeed met, as I would expect. In practice, the non-local sources that I have been able to check without a Highbeam account (such as [9], [10] and [11]) are reliable but not particularly in-depth, which is why I am !voting only a weak keep - but I am seeing enough to expect that an exhaustive search would undeniably show WP:GNG to be met. PWilkinson (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Lots of trivial, passing and routine mentions, but precious little of any real depth or substance. Far too little to meet our notability guidelines. Basically a low-key local politician who hasn't generated much interest beyond his local jurisdiction. My own searches turned up nothing promising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 August 2014‎

Delete. Plenty of mentions in passing, but insufficient in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Claims that being local party leader confers automatic notability don't seem to be borne out by WP:POLITICIAN. Instead it states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" will be notable - if for example (per the note) they have "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". The in-depth coverage isn't there, and padding the article with multiple references to passing mentions, and with trivia, can't get around this lack of depth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete none of the positions from Lord Mayor to local party leader are inherently Notable as per WP:POL. Nothing other than ROUTINE local news coverage; and even there , no significant coverage about him, as would be needed for GNG. If he flies enough smiley flags on the anniversary of Thatcher's death that he gets coverage in national papers other than the unusable tabloids like the Mirror, then maybe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Irrespective of being a politician, it is hard to see how he doesn't simply satisfy WP:BASIC.

Non-local Coverage

"In audio: John Mutton interview". BBC News. 10 May 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
Lissaman, Clare (1 August 2012). "2012 Olympics: What will Coventry's legacy be?". BBC News. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
"Coventry 'cannot keep' Olympic rings". BBC News. 17 August 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
"Police commissioner role is 'barmy', says city council leader". BBC News. 29 October 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
"Coventry City stadium railway station plans 'to be approved'". BBC News. 26 July 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
"Ann Lucas named Coventry City Council leader". BBC News. 4 May 2013. Retrieved 17 May 2013.
Lyall, Sarah (10 August 2010). "Britain Reels as Spending Cuts Begin". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
Ficker, Martin (13 April 2013). "Margaret Thatcher funeral: Council leader 'regrets' joke that he'd fly flag with smiley face to mark occasion". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 24 August 2014.

Local Coverage

Chilton, Steve (2 May 2013). "Red Button: John Mutton returning from Russia without any love". Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
Reid, Less (9 May 2013). "Deposed council leader Mutton handed new Ricoh Arena role". Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
Simpson, Cara (1 August 2013). "Former Coventry council leader John Mutton tells of his heart scare". Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
Reid, Les (12 April 2012). "Coventry council leader expresses 'regret' over Thatcher e-mail joke". Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved 24 August 2014.

I am One of Many (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything about him* - he is speaking or being quoted about things the city or party did, but not anything he was particularly personally responsible for. There are no third parties providing analysis that "The Mutton Plan is responsible for XYZ". Unless i am missing something, that just further cements that he is just run o the mill local pol. (*other than the fact that he had a "health scare" - but that doesnt make one notable)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is this clause of WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability that I believe applies here. If one pieced together all such articles (including articles critical of his various positions and views) say since he was mayor in 1997, then a substantial article could assembled—not a task I would want to do, but doable nonetheless. Regarding third party analysis of XYZ, for example, in the second article in the list above, professor Simon Chadwick is interviewed and talks about the likelihood of Mutton's economic success with the 2012 Olympics in Coventry, which is somewhat negative. I agree with you that the vast, vast majority of local politicians are not notable, but this is one of the few that looks to be notable. I am One of Many (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable politician in Coventry. Leader of Coventry City Council from 2010 to 2013 would seem to me enough. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Seems to fulfill both WP:POLITICIAN and general notability, not to mention he was Lord Mayor for Coventry. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:06, 31 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Angola

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

Any list with one blue link is useless. At that point, it's not a list. This article has been around for 9 years - since October 2005‎ and remains useless. Failed {{prod}} without stating any reason for objection. The Dissident Aggressor 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination. My views Currently the article is too short to exist as a separate article. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an established series of lists. This article could be used to make initial expansions. There are bound to be many more.--TM 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria ""Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace. Write these in your userspace, or in a Wikiproject's space, or list the missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles." That's not me, that's WP:MOS and this article clearly fits that criteria. The Dissident Aggressor 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a bigger scheme and per WP:BIAS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it isn't really that different from other list of schools in... articles. User: Esmost ^talk 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a previous deletion nomination for all the lists of schools in different countries which concluded "keep". Discussing one in isolation is not appropriate. --BozMo talk 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 26 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 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Kuzucu

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. I found a lot of hits with Google, but they're routine reports of fights or announcements of upcoming fights. His ISKA runner up finishes in 2005 were as an amateur and therefore not helpful in showing he's a notable kickboxer.204.126.132.231 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no significant independent coverage and his successes were as an amateur kickboxer which is not enough to meet WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 17:48, 25 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 Microsoft Windows. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Windows

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

Article does not establish notability required by WP:N. A run-of-the-mill screen saver is unlikely to have ever received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Books on Windows do mention it, but the coverage is both trivial and quantitatively small; furthermore, they do it to make their coverage of Windows more comprehensive. (They only make Windows more notable.) Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The flying windows screen savers is not run of the mill. whether it's independently notable or not is a bit of a borderline question in my opinion, but as screen savers go, it's quite significant: default screen saver for an (unfortunately) major OS. --Slashme (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A binary ripple effect that millions of screen savers implement is, by definition, run-of-the-mill. But I don't even know why you bother commenting on this part of the nomination at all. As for being the default of something, we delete articles on "default"s left and right when lack of notability is shown. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar is an example. For a example of a "default" that has notability, please see Bliss (image) article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing to keep the article, just pointing out that the use of the term ROTM was a bit off-target here. In fact, looking through Google Books, I see it mentioned everywhere, but discussed in depth nowhere, so I think it probably does fail the WP:GNG. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Microsoft Windows: Current article makes no claim of notability independent of Windows itself, and lists no independent, reliable sources. A review of Google Books hits finds no in-depth coverage, just ubiquitous passing mentions. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Microsoft Windows. There's no reason to keep this article on its own. George8211 / T 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Microsoft Windows. James500 (talk) 15:44, 23 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 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth van Hooland

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC: no major awards, no fellowship in prestigious societies, no distinguished professorships. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per h-index of 6. [12] Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately premature. (And thanks for G Scholar index info - just discovered I'm a h-19. Yet still not notable. :-) LaMona (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I just turned h-11 and I'm definitely not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record (per his Google scholar profile) far below threshold for WP:PROF#C1. No other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 21 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 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Allan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable, independent sources. Reference links seem promotional or ones that anyone can ask to join. One is an outright advert. Parabolooidal (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - not (yet?) notable. Some works self published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMona (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Very promotional, and no ref. --Klp363 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 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. dictionaryfan, if you like, I can undelete the article and move it to your private user space, where you can continue to work on it. If you are able to find sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, it can be moved back to the main article space at a later time. Drop me a note at User_talk:RoySmith if you would like me to do this. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyra Neftzger

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

I believe this article fails the notability for musicians. It also appears to be copied directly from one of the sources (although perhaps the source has copied this page). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page has not been updated recently. It was my understanding that the purpose of this initiative was to improve articles, and not simply eliminate them. Has anyone done research to determine whether the article can be improved before making this decision? dictionaryfan (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Mostly his own work and related sources. Faills WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am an elementary music teacher and created this page, a well as his wife's page because they wrote a book for children and created jazz curriculum to go with the book. Because it is free, this curriculum is still being used by thousands of teachers. These Wikipedia pages are useful to teachers like me when we refer others to the curriculum, as it provides background information that we can show to school administrators when submitting the curriculum for approval. Please note that other websites populate information from Wikipedia, which is why I feel these entries are necessary. All this to say that while these individuals are not commercially successful mainstream individuals, they are notable within their fields for their efforts to introduce children to jazz. I am not a great Wikipedia editor but am willing to so the work to update the pages to meet your criteria. However, if the criteria is centered on popularity then there is no amount of work I can do to fix these pages. dictionaryfan (talk) 14:01, 20 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dictionaryfan Here are some ideas for finding more info to fill out the references: 1) look for articles in magazines for teachers that talk about the book and curriculum - something that says "curriculum used in n schools nationwide" would be helpful 2) check music reference books for the person as a musician. Unfortunately, no searching that I did turned up anything useful (but I did fix the link to the curriculum, which appears to have changed). LaMona (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaryfan, after reading your comments above I have had another read of the article. At the moment, it sounds like his music work is his main achievement and the writing of the books is a side issue, especially in the introduction to the article. Perhaps the article should be edited to put more emphasis on his writing if that is his most valuable contribution. (These are just observations from a layman) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:28, 21 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 16:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wilson (poker player)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major poker or bridge titles won. He gets a little bit of notice for having no arms,[13] but that's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if one can redirect it to something else or merge it into something else. But from what I can tell it just isn't enough right now. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 27 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 16:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Smash

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

Struggling to find RS that they actually played any matches. Don't believe they meet WP:NOTABILITY Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable semi-pro women's American football team. This is easy. A Google News Search reveals ZERO articles about this team. A Google search for "Twin City Smash" reveals 31 hits, which include this article, mirror articles of the Wikipedia article, a couple of YouTube videos, a promotion for an unrelated hamburger of the same name, and my personal favorite -- a book compiled from Wikipedia articles about sports teams in Iowa. Subject does not come close to satisfying the notability guidelines for a team (organization) per WP:ORG and WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this one for WP:PROD back on January 18, 2011‎. The editor removed the prod with the reasoning, "this women's team is a notable team in a notable league, so you can kill the men's link if you want, but just let me improve this one." Since that time there have been three edits to the article: an "unreferenced" template, a "stub-sorting orphan" template, and the AFD template. So I'm going to say "Delete for the same reasons I PRODded it." (see Talk:Twin City Smash for old prod full template/reasoning).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like PMcD, you should have harpooned this one with an AfD in 2011! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I blew it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Hey, PMcD, you can make up for being a Big Old Softy in 2011 by reviewing the notability of the other teams in this league, too. It's a safe bet that several of the others, if not all of them, are likewise notability challenged per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time I'll give it a whirl, but no promises.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I am not finding significant coverage of this team in reliable sources such as mainstream media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 22 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIS colleges of Engineerings

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

No evidence of notabilty and unreferenced Theroadislong (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Test page at best. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability.--Laun chba ller 14:14, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Reeve

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

Non-notable martial artist - owner of a single school. Looks like autobiographical. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographical article about a martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE. Rank and halls of fame don't show notability and her articles aren't enough to help her meet WP:AUTHOR. I don't see reliably sourced significant independent coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography about a martial artist who runs one school. She doesn't meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 23 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. Future merges or whatever are at editorial discretion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side hug

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

Not notable: all RS refer only to a non-notable 2009 rap song as evidence this term exists. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hug. Kind of mentioned in an article by the Los Angeles Times, and Google News attests to its usage in reliable sources. But this article seems to mostly be about the rap song. There's enough coverage to mention it at hug, but there really isn't significant coverage of the phenomenon itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you refer to calls it a "side-to-side" or "buddy hug", and both terms seem to be created on-the-spot to describe the hug rather than suggest people actually use these names. Though the meaning is intuitive once explained, I cannot find any reliable source which suggests people actually use this term apart from mentions of the non-notable rap song of the same name.

I remain highly doubtful that this behavior exists as a "type of hug" as I have never in 39 years seen someone perform a "side hug". It looks like two people posing for a picture. Do people actually do this as a form of intimacy? I welcome anyone who has actually witnessed a "side hug" in real life to come forth. TricksterWolf (talk) 04:02, 6 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, Mz7 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googled it and found articles from real life papers referencing side hugs from 2014 w/out talking about rap videos so it still exists Time circuit (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, pretty much any phrase can be found in newspapers. The test is whether it receives "significant coverage in reliable sources", not whether it exists. We need articles that explain what a side hug is, not articles that casually use the phrase. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 16 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, Sandstein 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject with multiple in-depth references in reliable sources meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are one or two sources that are actually about the side hug in the article now, which means that it's probably not worth fighting over this any more. I still think it should probably be merged, but this is a losing battle that I'm rapidly losing the will the fight. I've struck my vote, as it seems debatable enough that I just can't care any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not see it as you losing your battle, but rather us Wikipedians jockeying over whether the article should stay or go, testing each other, consulting rule books, so we can learn from each other, sharpen our skillsets, and suchly. In a sense, we are winning our battle to make a truly excellent encyclopedia, so we can go create and improve top notch articles like you did with Psychological thriller -- much better article after your sharp mind honed it Ninja-style. :).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my phrasing was a bit poor in my previous message, and yours is much, much better. Honestly, I think that I could have done better on that article. I just nominated another article I wrote for GAN, and I thought psychological thriller would be as easy to write; it wasn't. Now that I have access to Highbeam Research and JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library, I might be able to expand it further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 25 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New England frog

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/New England frog

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

Nobody would ever search under "New England frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. A valid disambig page, and the grok.se stats counter shows that it gets used. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike the members of the dab page "ornate frog", none of the above species are known as the "New England frog". A search of GoogleScholar showed no (zero) frog species known as the "New England frog", similarly a more general search on Google showed no such identification. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known. As a result of none of these being known as the "New England frog", this would seem to fall under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. A List of New England frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Bejnar that there is no indication that there are any frogs commonly having the name "New England frog". Moreover, this disambiguation page introduces confusion. Frogs native to the New England region of the US are generically referred to as New England frog species. I am One of Many (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a WP:PTM violation, and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/New%20England%20frog indicates this is not a common search term, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 18 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, Sandstein 11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a plausible search term, and the page directs readers to what I suspect they'd be searching for. Presupposing that readers have perfect knowledge of a topic they're searching for in an encyclopaedia is daft; they're likely to make such small mistakes, an to make the encyclopaedia useful we should send them to what they're looking for. Wily D 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A usefull disambig page, don't see why it should be deleted. --Klp363 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two species listed have similar enough names (or secondary names) to warrent this disambiguation page. Altamel (talk) 17:59, 22 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful frog

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

Nobody would ever search under "Beautiful frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are two frogs known as "beautiful frog", why shouldn't this be a reasonable DAB page?--cyclopia ^speak! 15:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a WP:PTM violation. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Beautiful%20frog doesn't really indicate this is a serious search term. Some reliable source examination would be good. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While many frogs have been called beautiful, notably Odorrana ishikawae, I found no frog species (or genus) known as the "beautiful frog". There was none found in a search of GoogleScholar, and none found in a general Google search. This page is unlike the dab page for "ornate frog", because there species are in fact called "ornate frog" as well as more detailed appellations. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known. As a result of none of these being known as the "beautiful frog", this falls under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, as noted by editor Joy [shallot] above. A List of beautiful frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer, albeit highly subjective, list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bejnar. This is just a disambiguation page of redirects with no indication in Google or GoogleScholar of named beautiful frogs.I am One of Many (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least three articles with frog names that contained sourced "beautiful". One that was originally on the disambiguation page was not a sourced common name. I edit the DAB page so that it has those three articles as User:DGG indicated below. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 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, Sandstein 11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plausible search term; I'm not 100% convinced that this is what readers are likely to mean, but I think it's the best we can do. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find what they're looking for, pre-supposing that they already know everything is presupposing something that's almost certainly false. WilyD 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've argued against the notion it's a plausible search term, but for the sake of argument, if you're not sure a disambiguation page is actually helpful here, why not leave it to the search engine, then? This line of reasoning is a slippery slope to beautiful horse, beautiful flower, beautiful car, beautiful TV, beautiful woman, beautiful concept, ... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also see the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser frog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is actually part of the common name of several frogs, which should be listed here. It's not a vlaue judment, and the people who think it are--including the nom--must not be reading the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to be annoying here, but you've literally contradicted the WP:PTM guideline - if it's part of the common name, it's not the common name itself, hence disambiguation is not the right tool for the job. A disambiguation page is not a search index. [...] Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. The term "beautiful frog" does not appear on any of the three linked articles themselves, so it's hard to see why anyone would refer to them using this specific term as opposed to their actual listed names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG and WilyD.It is a common name and a search term for frogs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WilyD is on point here. Even if it isn't a commonly used search term, disambiguation pages (like redirects) guide people to the proper article. Even if it only helps lead one person to the correct page, it's doing its job. Upjav (talk) 18:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

An IP request from the talk page (page is semi'd)

Manu Sharma is not a notable person. He was involved in a criminal case. Neither he is a great personality nor he is the owner of any big firm or organization. He is just a layman who murdered a lady for which he has already been punished. Then on what basis his Wikipedia page has been created online. There are many criminals exists then why only his page has been created. Wikipedia should give equal importance to everyone. If anybody can put information on Wikipedia then anybody's Wikipedia page can also be made over here. There must be some rules and regulations that Wikipedia must follow. Everyone knows that Manu Sharma is not at all a popular person although he is just a criminal and by posting his information like this online we are indirectly promoting him. Who knew Manu Sharma before no one but if such information or pages will be made online then everyone will get to know about that yes Manu Sharma might be a a very popular personality. I don't think that there is any use of promoting this page anymore. Here, on this page the Jessica Lal's murder case information has been mentioned so the page must be of Jessica Lal Murder case rather than of Manu Sharma. Being a normal user of Wikipedia its my duty to report the issue that we all face and analyzes by seeing this page. If you think this page must be there online then please give me some genuine and solid reasons that ye this page must be present online and its really very beneficial for folks. Also, please if you can then prove me that the page has not been created for the promotional purpose. And if possible please remove this page

Two previous AfDs came to no consensus; the request to merge/redirect to Murder of Jessica Lal per WP:BLP1E is reasonable enough that I brought it here; but this is a bit procedural; I myself am neutral Wily D 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Not IP, but on request of an editor who is suspected of abusing multiple accounts, User:Ravindaran Shastri (diff. link). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason for deletion while reviewing WP:GNG. And WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems apparent that this person has a lasting independent notability, as shown by news coverage of his paroles eight years after his conviction. This request seems connected to an edit war on the article about his father, Venod Sharma, over attempts to add puffery before a political run. Revent^talk 06:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Revent and WP:CRIME ,WP:GNG and also WP:NOTCENSORED .Clear COI editing has been done to Venod Sharma his Father's page and his brother Kartikeya Sharma and also here. Please note Haryana state assembly elections are due in 2014 and Venod Sharma is a Haryana Politician. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject does have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it does meet Wikipedia general notability guideline. And, It does not fall under WP:BLP1E, because the guideline says, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:". The subject even if meets first one, it certainly does not the other two.

On a side note, I'd say, -Wikipedia community is wasting time to have this deletion discussion here. It is most probably requested by a sock-puppeter (User:Akshwjas), which is very much related to Venod Sharma, father of "Manu Sharma". His problem is, when people Google Venod Sharma, Manu Sharma page shows up in search results, and it some unknown way affects Venod Sharma personality. He tried very much to remove the father Venod Sharma name from present article using "edit semi-protected" requests on talk page, what is reliably sourced and is just basic biographical detail (See, Talk:Manu Sharma). Now as his previous edit-request on talk page was reverted by some Wikipedia editor, he is here to engage us in an unnecessary deletion discussion. And it is all just because, there is about to happen a states assembly election sometime, in the end of the year.

I'd argue User:WilyD to withdraw the nomination to save the community time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proper discussion of a BLP that's twice been closed as no consensus is never a waste of time, and it's perposterous to suggest otherwise. Yeah, there's a long timespan of coverage, but it looks like it's all about his role as a killer, rather than a biography of him, and the content is very similar to Murder of Jessica Lal; it's very reasonable to suggest it's a BLP1E case. I'm not convinced it's not the proper outcome. Wily D 07:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your stand here, as you say in nomination, you are neutral and it is a bit procedural. And, you also wonder at the same time, if it falls under BLP1E and a redirect to the event Murder of Jessica Lal page would be more constructive approach. If BLP1E is the only concern, I'd love the cite the same guideline here to avoid confusion, if there's any:

BLP1E says, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"

1. - If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - He was covered out of the single event, as when he was granted parole, he was covered in multiple independent reliable sources as such, The Hindu, The Hindu-2, Times of India. --Other out of event coverage, --Times of India (9 years later of the event), Times of India-2. He has been in news coverage one and half decade later in 2014, since the event occurred in 1999, NDTV significant coverage. And, similarly there are many, it was covered by almost all national news papers and tv channels, The Hindu, Economic Times, Times of India, IBN live, Zee news. Last coverage of the subject was only a month ago, 1. He gets coverage, when he comes out on parole and even when goes back to the jail (1).

2. -If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. --->Certainly not. He is son of Venod Sharma and brother of Kartikeya Sharma. He is subjected to news coverage every time something he does, irrespective of good or bad. Not really very likely to be a low-profile individual.

3. - If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. --->Event was much significant that, a movie, No One Killed Jessica was made, and even it turned out to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that it has its own article. More than just enough substantial coverage and the subject was just well covered in the reliable sources that, Manu Sharma was a good article at one time. Manu Sharma has received persistent coverage, -[1 coverage of a month ago].

Do you still believe, it is a candidate of WP:BLP1E. If yes, I would choose to not argue any more and will leave it on community to have it run all 7 or 14 days, to achieve a consensus through the deletion discussion here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets the general notability guideline and there is no reason for deleting as suggested above. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely keep this article. And since it is the 3rd nomination maybe it could be the last one with a definite KEEP. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:59, 25 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. I think some words on the response to Black Kite's relisting are needed here. I am pretty sure that he is fully aware of the guidelines and the responses quoting guideline chapter and verse were uncalled for. He was simply saying that it would be surprising if such a company turned out not to be notable. That seems to me a perfectly legitimate reason for extending the debate. I also want to note that, while I tried not to let this influence my close, my own search of news databases did turn up some coverage. We can at least say that gnews searches are not definitive for establishing lack of coverage. SpinningSpark 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradfords Group

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

Looks like an advertisement and there is nothing indicating the significance of the article on Wikipedia. Kansiime (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written to inform readers about the incredible history behind the company. The Bradford family and company history have been traced back over 400 years and I feel this is of huge historical interest. 90% of the article relates to the history of the company, so what is it that makes this article appear as an advertisement? I would be happy to amend or improve and welcome your suggestions in relation to this.--Richardrpoole (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be making a credible effort to address issues, I left some recommendations at the article's talk page.--Rpclod (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have thought that a business this old would be notable, but the article is almost entirely sourced from self-published material: what is needed is substantial independant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears notable, although it could do with more independent references. It can be difficult to find published information on company histories, but that does not mean that the subject is unimportant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More independent references have now been added to validate historical information Richardrpoole (talk) 09:12, 26 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) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is the very epitome of original historical research. The sources are essentially primary; the resulting material is a WP:SYNTHESIS. Notability is not produced simply because someone can dig out these sources, and indeed, the message here is that this is the routine story of a business which started out as a family concern and grew, modestly, from there. Such companies exist in the millions, and there's nothing here which distinguishes this from the rest of the pack. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Far from an ideal article, but a company with 38 branches probably ghas sufficient public profile to need an article. TEchnically the historical aspects may be a variety of WP:OR, but is it suggested that they are false? WP:V requires that information should be verifable, not that it should be referenced, though being referenced properly is always desirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with Mangoe - the types of sources used call notability into question while the page is written with what seems like original research and in turn, synthesis. Mediphor (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now got a total of 25 reference points to support the history of the family and hope this helps the argument to keep this article Richardrpoole (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. Clearly fails WP:GNG - all sources are primary, if not self-published, and a search found nothing on news, newspapers or Google Books. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:33, 20 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd relist comment. I have re-listed this again as I am somewhat flummoxed by the fact that a company with a 250-year history and over 1,000 employees (I checked that) cannot be notable. So, giving this another week (even though it's probably no consensus anyway). Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia is not the same as real world importance. From the notability guidelines: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." and "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered..." and No original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." It is isn't a question of whether this is or is not an important company; it is only a question of whether it meets the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would say that although the early history may warrant original research (and nicely done!), the 20th and 21st century sections should be based on third party information. For that one would look in books or articles about the history of the region, or about the industry itself. My gut feeling is that individual companies reach notability when they do something innovative that changes an industry or a culture, but that most companies are not notable. LaMona (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the opener to WP:CORPDEPTH "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This article clearly fails that, as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There are lots of companies in the UK with long histories, many of them not notable. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a nice bit of original research, which should be published somewhere reliable so that it could be referenced in Wikipedia. I'm also thinking that a UK history wiki, if there is one, would be a great place for this kind of research. Weak delete LaMona (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question User:Richardrpoole do you have a conflict of interest? Any relationship to the company or the family? I ask because this is the only Wikipedia page you've worked on, and it's all independent research. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No conflict AdventurousMe Yes it's the first and it could be the last! I never realised how many hurdles there were to overcome. Still hopeful that it remains live though Richardrpoole (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's hard on you to have it up for deletion Richardrpoole. The key issues people are having here are that the subject doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage in books or newspapers, and therefore doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion at this stage. I think LaMona's suggestion that you get the baseline content published somewhere else, or in multiple other places (given you've done all this digging), is a good one. Because at the moment it's original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also really recommend, given you seem to have a lot of local history and genealogical knowledge, that you contribute by improving other existing pages where you have expertise - Yeovil looks, to my untutored eyes, in need of an update. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:54, 27 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. This discussion has been hopelessly polluted by blocked users, sockpuppets, incivility, and other things that make it difficult to assess consensus. However, of those genuine users who expressed a view on the topic, there does not seem to be agreement on whether the sources provided do or do not demonstrate notability. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the majority of this discussion, no prejudice against speedy relisting if someone wants to take the plunge again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Nelson (union leader)

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

Appears to be non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are press release or trivial coverage in nature. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Nelson is a well known Labor Leader in the United States. Additionally, she replaces Veda Shook. We are in the process of adding more citations and information. However, we wanted to get the structure done first.

By reigniting the discussion, you only further demonstrate Reddogsix what I initially posted on your page, that this appears to be driven by a political agenda on your end through disagreement with issues raised.

There are literally thousands of Labor leaders with less rank listed on Wikipedia. The individual is notable to anyone who googles Sara Nelson AFA, or watches the News. She appears frequently on talk shows, to discuss issues that affect Flight Attendants.

~~Additionally, the page has established her notability in its recent update. Reddogsix apparently didn't take the time to read it.~~

~~References are ARTICLES from cites like Reuters, the New York Times, and even the AFL-CIO itself.~~

~~Again, this overreach by reddogsix appears to be motivated by petty political agendas, and not the quality of Wikipedia. Unionyes420 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Additionally, Nelson has appeared in Media on four different continents. These will all be added tonight once we compile the cites in the right order. Notability? Unionyes420 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-:I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before you accuse anyone else of an agenda. You know nothing of me other than what you could ascertain from my edit history, I suggest you review that before you start making any further claims that cannot be supported. The article needs to be supported by non-trivial support. The WP:BURDEN of providing that support falls to the author of the article, not to the reader. Since you have not provided support, I have AfD the article in the hopes someone will do so.

"Real world" notability differs from Wikipedia based WP:Notability, I suggest you read the guideline in this sentence. Btw, an association with anyone else does not provide notability - notability is not Inherited. reddogsix (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article are press releases or small statements made by Nelson. I poked around a bit but all I found were additional press releases that do nothing to help notability. Ish dar ian 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial coverage, she may be notable in the future - however, at the moment I think we're lacking basic notability Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page will need to be moved to Sara Nelson instead of Sara Nelson AFA should this for some reason be kept Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize we already had that article - how are situations like this resolved? (honest question). Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *comment Satisfies WP:GNG

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Note that the article cites the New York Times, Reuters, Associations Now, AFA, and the AFL-CIO. One could not find better sources for Labor Leaders. We're inputting more cites tonight, and adding more information to the article. Again, reddogsix, suggesting uncivility over and over again to deflect what you have done suggests you should reread WP:UNCIVIL yourself. Definitely not an act of good faith.

~~Re making it just Sara Nelson, that one already exists - they are two different people. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response This person's name is Sara Nelson and her entry should not be required to carry the parenthetical (Union Leader). There are thousands of examples of entries involving multiple people who have the same name, which in turn leads to the creation of a disambiguation page. Why is that not an appropriate solution here? david (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - without the parenthetical notation there would be no way to create an entry to refer to from the disambiguation page. Since there already is a Sara Nelson there needs to be a way to distinguish it from the existing named entry. The parenthetical notation is usually based on the primary function of the article subject. If Nelson was a football player the entry would be Sara Nelson (football). reddogsix (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseIf the page is headed Sara Nelson (Union Leader) will it show up in a search for "Sara Nelson"? 2601:A:4E80:4B0:5150:475F:7A2A:B9C6 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it should, you can test it. Give it a shot. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Do Not Delete, Move To Sara Nelson (Borer) Not sure why anyone is in such an almighty hurry to delete this. Nelson led one of the largest private section union election victories since Walter Reuther organized the autoworkers at General Motors. Granted most people don't know their labor history; that's why people like us are posting significant events and leaders so Wiki will be more complete and will have less of an anti-union bias than other sources. About 60% of the American labor unions listed on Wiki have, by rough count, links to the leader of that union. None of which, as far as I could find, ever published an Op Ed piece on the New York Times editorial page. So, while reddog might not know her, that's more on him and not on her. david (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how does any of this establish Wikipedia based WP:Notability? reddogsix (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Updated Page Added coverage from the Today Show. Bringing the cites to:

[1]"Corvallis native elected president of flight attendants union". nwLaborPress.org (Portland, Oregon). June 4, 2014. Retrieved August 10, 2014. [2], by Reuters, Published June 5, 2013. [3], by Associations Now, Accessed August 10, 2014. [4], by New York Times, Published March 27, 2013. [5], by the Today Show, Accessed August 10, 2014. [6], published by the AFL-CIO, Accessed August 10, 2014. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2: These sources don't even come close to establishing GNG.

nwLaborPress.org - Press release. Doesn't meet WP:RS
Reuters, Published June 5, 2013. - Small quote from Nelson. Does not establish notability.
Associations Now, Accessed August 10, 2014. - Small quote from Nelson. Does not establish notability.
New York Times, Published March 27, 2013. - Article by Nelson, not about Nelson. Does not establish notability.
AFL-CIO, Accessed August 10, 2014. - No mention. Source does nothing.

Unionyes420, you need to assume good faith here. You automatically jumped down reddogsix's throat and claimed that he has some kind of political/personal motivation to delete the article, yet you have shown not a single shred of proof to back up your claims. You need to calm down and take a step back here. If you have additional sources, please add them to the article. Other than that, just let the discussion run it's course. You're not doing yourself any favors here. Ish dar ian 00:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response Actually, I was rather straight up with him at first. Then, he decided that other users approving the page wasn't good enough for him, and that he didn't like that someone else removed his request for deletion, so he put it here for a group discussion. If we're going to debate the actions, let's keep it in perspective. Additionally, we have a TON of sources. Literally, thousands. I'm plugging them in and adding to the article as we go. I'm not looking for favors. I'm looking to contribute to an accurate and quality Wiki. These personal attacks are getting old, fast. Unionyes420 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Further Response This page clearly meets GNG. It displays significant coverage, and this is with just the bare cites I'm able to plug in while responding to y'all. They are all reliable, media sources. The sources are secondary, outside of her interviews and op/ed. And, the independence is further demonstrated by the multiple media coverages. And lastly, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]" Unionyes420 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)RD6 has been following procedure. That "review" means nothing, especially since the account was created for that sole purpose. The WP:PROD was contested, so he took it to AfD. He did nothing wrong here and you can't fault him for that. Ish dar ian 00:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Response I've re-read all the applicable guidelines and can't find a single requirement that the article fails to satisfy. I've added additional cites, and I have a whole list of additional cites to add tonight. I'm also seeking a different photo and will add it to the info box asap. I must say, looking at other similar entries, this one is already more developed than many. In fact, there are lots of corporate executives who are far less "notable" and have less of a public profile and yet have an entry that goes unchallenged here. What, specifically, will it take to get the Articles for Deletion header removed, because I'm happy to fill in any remaining blanks. Absent something specific, leaving the header on this page seems to violate the guideline that creates a presumption in favor of inclusion now that we've added multiple independent sources from major news outlets as references. david (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reviewed the additional references and they do not eliminate the original concerns. There is a lack of non-trivial secondary references. I would focus on adding those type of references. As for the image, please be sure it does not violate any copyright guidelines - that is what got the original image removed from Wikipedia. As far as other articles, please see WP:WAX. Remember Wikipedia based notability differs from "real world" notability. The two are not the same. If you feel there are articles that need to be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to do so by following the Wikipedia guidelines. The AfD will run for at least 7 days and possible longer. Given the number of comment on it, it is unlikely it will be closed sooner than that. reddogsix (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseI'm not interested in deleting other articles that are obviously inadequate; that's someone else's pastime. My point, obviously, was simply that you are attempting to hold this article to a standard that not applied to other pages. I don't know why, so I'll just keep adding cites until it's obvious to everybody that the article should stay. And, I have to note that you've ignored once again the presumption that the article should stay. If you're going to demand that there's a feature-length documentary about a person before they should have an article then you should get busy deleting thousands of other entries. Seriously, if the New York, the BBC, Canadian TV and all the others aren't sufficient evidence of notability I don't know what you're looking for. Is there some higher level of authority I can discuss this with? 2601:A:4E80:4B0:5150:475F:7A2A:B9C6 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same standards are applied to all articles, there is no "special" application of Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to ignore that at least two other editors have agreed with the assessment that this articles fails to establish notability. The simple fact is other editors, in addition to myself, do not agree the article meets notability guidelines. I am not sure why you would think I would require a documentary about any individual - I never said or implied anything like that. Why would there be a presumption that the article should stay? If it meets Wikipedia guidelines sure, but if not, why? You ask the question about the quality of the reference sources, the issue relates to non-trivial vs. trivial and secondary vs. primary support. SeeWP:GNG. The purpose of the AfD is to provide comments about an article nominated for deletion, the deletion or inclusion is a result of the quality of arguments supported by Wikipedia guidelines that are reviewed by an Admin. The Admin will make the decision. If you feel any of my actions are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, you can use WP:RFC/U to report the actions, but I would suggest you understand the guidelines, the process, and what you are suggesting as the improper action on my part. reddogsix (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Comment Is it customary to block and remove the content by a long-time admin in order to get the upper hand in a debate about whether to delete an article? I thought this was an open system? Show me the rule that allows another admin to do this. This whole crusade against this page is just ridiculous david (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all it is my understanding User:Unionyes420 has never been an Admin. Concerning the strikeout of the comments, see WP:BANREVERT. I don't know what you mean about this being an "open system". While anyone can contribute to Wikipedia there are standards that we all have to follow in order to be allow to contribute to Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Aren't the citations included at this point too overwhelming to ignore Notability? Surely, ever major media outlet being included gives credence to the non-trivial/notability requirement. It seems that we are debating semantics, instead of focusing on the quality of WP. Invisiblediplomat (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe the citations are substantial enough to establish notability. A quotation in an article is not non-trivial. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor *Comment I thought it was odd how quickly and how hard RD6 jumped on this article. Then I found this in the guidelines: "Unsourced biographies of living people (BLP) created after March 18, 2010, can be proposed for deletion using a special proposed deletion process. To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." I'd politely suggest it's time to back off of the proposed deletion and allow people to finish building this page. Is there a process I can use to recuse someone from stomping on this article while we're given a fair opportunity to build it to completion. Or, is there some way to get a fair assessment of the whole "notability" issue since it seems RD6 has determined that no amount of citations are sufficient in spite of what the guideline I just cited might say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dab2 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete because the references are not about her, non-notable union leader. --Bejnar (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked Editor Keep It the references are secondary, of high quality, and she is one of the most featured union leaders in the US on the news. i just searched for her on an engine, and it came up with hundreds of additional citations. I noticed that specifically WP states that new pages shouldn't be jumped on, and should be given an opportunity to be authored. Just looking over things on this, it appears that is exactly what happened.GiganticMasticator (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — GiganticMasticator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Notable union leader of a 50,000 member union. Sources like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one are nontrivial reliable independent sources confirming that Nelson easily meets the WP:GNG. That the New York Times thinks she is notable enough to allow her to write an op-ed piece is further confirmation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles {Ping|Tomwsulcer}} cites are not about her, such as "Osama Bin Laden Dead: Flight Attendants React" and "Flight attendants protest TSA changes: 'This cannot stand'", or they are press releases from the union like [this one at bizjournals.com]. --Bejnar (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Do you expect sources to be about her in the sense of her personal preferences, her backstory, her childhood, her views on subject X or Y? Nobody cares about that. Rather, she is a union leader and spokesperson, influential, with much media attention, and the cites are rightly about her union-oriented issues, such as TSA decisions, bargaining positions, and such. Clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suppose it is nonsense if you consider the Wikipedia guidelines for notability nonsense. Just being a "union leader of a 50,000 member union" does not make anyone notable per Wikipedia guidelines and it is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Remember, "real-world" notability is different than Wikipedia notability. As pointed out many times in the AfD, the references in the article are trivial or are not secondary.

What I find interesting is that I fully expect the individual to be notable sometime in the future. Probably, sooner than later. But until her coverage improves, not just yet.reddogsix (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject meets Wikipedia's notability guideline which says received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. She is mentioned prominently in major articles which are valid WP:SECONDARY sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see significant coverage, being quoted in an article or briefly mentioned does not equal significant coverage. reddogsix (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leading a substantial union effort to prominently criticize a TSA decision is significant coverage in spades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources cited by Tomwsulcer are more than trivial coverage and satisfy WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As described by the editors above, I think this satisfies WP:BASIC. The article should be sharpened up on referencing and content, but the subject is a longtime union leader with multiple reference sources, including coverage on NBC and BBC, plus the op-ed in The New York Times. It seems unlikely the subject is going to go away anytime soon and more sources and judicious editing are likely to improve this article over time, so a delete now would be counterproductive in my view. I've added it to a couple of wiki projects (aviation and organised labour) as it would certainly help to have collaboration and focused discussion around the article from subject specialists. Libby norman (talk) 11:17, 20 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tomwsulcer and Passes WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked EditorKeep. Multiple (among 16 provided) sources are independent and non-trivial reliable, Tomwsulcer already listed some of the specific articles above. Nelson easily meets the WP:GNG, particularly given the influence and importance of the union the subject leads. Though technically a primary source, the New York Times selection of the subject for an opinion article on her expertise confirms notability in the newspaper's eyes. It is worth noting that reddogsix, who appears to be driving the deletion, appears to have personal views of notability and triviality that are much more subjective than Wikipedia's guidelines. Specifically, a review of reddogsix's history shows a concerning amount of conflicts and arguments regarding female article subjects, and possibly female Wikipedia editors. Tenderlegal (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)— Tenderlegal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - </sigh> Making personal attacks does not validate your views. Nor does making unsupported comments. I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL. Interesting that other editors have supported my views on the notability, yet you have failed to call them to task for their opinions. If you are sure my actions are contrary to Wikipedia standards and guideline, you are welcome to use WP:RFC/U as an avenue to quell my actions. reddogsix (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked EditorComment - Is that a boilerplate or intended for another editor(?), I made no personal attack, and AGF by saying "possibly" in the face of multiple immediately observable data points. Your personal and lengthy arguments with several other editors (see above) and similar arguments throughout your user history are not my views, they are solely your doing and are available for anyone to review like I did. This pattern of arguments is relevant to this article and subject, and seemed worth mentioning more than echoing more of the same reasons this article should be kept. I do not appreciate your sarcastic remark, ("Interesting that..."), but to respond, unfortunately I do not have enough free time to address every single response here, nor do I have free time for the AfD comment wars like the ones you've engaged in above. I come to Wikipedia in hopes of helping all editors and subjects have fair representation and unbiased opportunity. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but the patterns in warring is making it difficult. Tenderlegal (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - </double sigh> Just so there is no doubt, the comment I made above was directed to Tenderlegal. Your drive by false statements of bias and statements of "giving the benefit of the doubt" in spite of prior comments are contrary to the Wikipedia community. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments by Blocked EditorComment - Rather than accuse me of lying about what is demonstrably true (for reasons already mentioned above), please explain why you have a disproportionate amount of arguments and comment warring, particularly on female subjects and with what appear to be female editors. Your claims of non-triviality and non-notability aren't supported by Wikipedia's guidelines, and instead of supporting your positions with more information, you immediately claim another editor is being uncivil and start every comment with an unrelated (and incorrectly used) HTML tag "sigh." If your claims are valid, you should have no problem providing an explanation of them, so please do so. Otherwise, becoming so defensive and evasive severely weakens the credibility of your already subjective claims. Tenderlegal (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - </triple sigh> No thanks, if you wish to understand my stand on the article, reread the comments above. reddogsix (talk) 00:33, 22 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn, no dissenting !votes Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hit By Lightning

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

May be WP:TOOSOON. Movie has not been released yet. No references cited in page. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you or serial drive-by tagger PamD read WP:BEFORE and do any checking? Within five seconds I found this, this and this. It's going to get a general release in a couple of months, and I'm sure just going off the cast list there will be a TON of coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're saying it meets the three policy guides (and one essay) you quoted before, but now only fails the one essay, linked above. Not having a release date does not equate to being non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SmileBlueJay97, Go read WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest. I thought you were asking us to nominate the ariticle for AfD with this edit. This exact same article has been deleted by Admin NawlinWiki before under criteria G11 and A7 of speedy deletion. After Mike Ades (talk · contribs) re-created this same article again, I tagged it for speedy deletion as it has been deleted before. User:PamD removed the speedy deletion tag and nominated it for PROD instead. Then your {AfD is over there ----->} comment came. I am honestly confused with what is going on. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SmileBlueJay97:: Please... User:PamD was correct to remove the speedy as indeed, films are not eligible for A7... specially when diligent WP:BEFORE can show the film article as improvable. Her proposed deletion was a slightly better choice, as it called in others eyes. And when HE declined the prod, it was incorrect of you to think this edit called for deletion, when it simply calls for others to assist through regular editing in showing the film as meeting WP:NF. And what was lost on you was User:Lugnuts's own de-prodding and his "(decline. AfD is over there ----->)" acting to bring your lack of proper WP:BEFORE into scrutiny. And toward your "No references cited in page"... so what? Notability is dependent upon sources BEING available and not on their use or not to cite an article. Had you actually looked before leaping, you would have found the coverage in independent sources showing the film as having had a public screeining. Hope that clears up your "confusion". Oops. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took you three minutes to add the prod tag and then PamD took all of one minute after moving the article to add the prod and notability tags. Clearly WP:CIR before doing this. The notability tag is an oxymoron - the article is either notable or it isn't - there is no grey area. And I've shown it is notable within a few minutes. Tell me how many minutes did you both spend searching for sources before adding the tag? You can round that up to the nearest 10 minutes. And show your workings too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep this brand new article and continue improvements. The film premiered July 23, 2014 at the Just For Laughs Festival and has coverage to meet WP:NF. AS it has screened and has coverage, SmileBlueJay97 can rest his worries. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, the film premiered July 23, 2014 and will have a US release on October 31, 2014: French-language source English-language translation It might be fair to for the nominator to acknowledge this and withdraw his deletion nomination. His choice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per MichaelQSchmidt, and to draw back a bit from wp:BITEing a newbie. Seems like the nomination was in haste, without wp:BEFORE performed. Of course if a film has once been deleted for being "too soon", later it may not be justified, you have to check! And, the speedy deletion, then restoration, then a prod, then this AFD, and other negative notes, have all been unduly hard on new contributor User:Mike Ades. Mike Ades, per IMDB listing for film, is one of 2 executive producers, but there is no prohibition from associated persons writing about a topic. Sure advise him pay attention to wp:COI, but there is no problem with the contribution at all. --do ncr am 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... specially as Mike brought us a two-sentence stub and then did nothing else to edit the article... hopefully not chased away as a contributor. The current start-class version bears little resemblance to the nominated stub. THAT'S how we build an encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the notability of the film has been sourced, I withdraw my deletion nomination. SmileBlueJay97 talk 07:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for not checking beforehand. I tagged it for speedy because the exact same article has been speedy deleted minutes before by Admin NawlinWiki under criteria G11 and A7 of speedy deletion. I assumed the administrator had checked before he/she deleted the article. SmileBlueJay97 talk 07:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ SmileBlueJay97: Thank you for the withdrawal. I followed your link to the deletion log, but found no action by NawlinWiki in regards this titel, nor did I find any earlier contributor being notified of an erelier speedy. I did find your August 19 notification to User:Hit By Lightning (film) (now blocked for username issues), AND your August 19 notification to User:Mike Ades. I did follow THESE edits diff-by-diff and saw a newcomer completely unfamiliar with wiki markup and mos:film. But I found no evidence that an earlier article was speedied... only that userpage resembling an article which was blanked by its owner. Can you share a diff for the earlier speedy? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

(copy-paste from deletion log) 15:33, August 19, 2014 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted page Hit By Lightning (Film) (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7) SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough SmileBlueJay97, and with the time-code I found what you did... but in looking through his contribs, I was unable to find any such action for that time and date, and still could not find him notifying an author. Just goes to show that even experienced admins can err. G11 is an iffy call for a two-sentence improvable stub and A7 does not apply to films. Had he done his own due diligence, he would have learned that by the article's creation on August 19, the film had already had its debut and the thing was eminently sourcable. Well, NawlinWiki... ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:42, 21 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. Withdrawn by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-level administrative country subdivisions

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

Basically, this article violates WP policy WP:UCN because it encompasses an impossibly broad collection of political subdivisions. Consider, what happens if you multiply the 200 or so countries in the world by their state or provinces ~~by their counties or parish subdivisions, and then by their city or town subdivisions?~~ What we get is an impossibly long long and un-encyclopedic list. – S. Rich (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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 speedy keep per criteria 1 of WP:SK (non-admin closure). James500 (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Vaughan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Created by WP:COI WP:SPA and tagged for notability and no references for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to have used "J.H. Vaughan" professionally and has, indeed, published on both the topic of birds (The Birds of Zanzibar and Pemba) and law in Zanzibar (Supplement to the Laws of Zanzibar). Whether there is enough coverage on him is another matter. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:37, 20 August and.2014 (UTC) These are some sources I pulled out of the intertubes: [14], [15] and [16]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC) I added some more at the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear Keep a pre-Internet non-WP:BLP. Does contain claims to fame (Chief Justice of Fiji); in Who's Who [17], and had an obituary in The Times (Apr 19, 1965; pg. 10).

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work on this article, Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 21 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 16:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjona R. Lubonja

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

No indication of notability per WP:SCHOLAR. Appears to be an autobiography. Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not clarify why the subject is relevant and does not give any neutral secundary sources. Subject won school awards in college, is a PhD with publications and wrote several books. None of this is a reason for being relevant on their own without secundary reliable sources indicating the relevance of this work and media or other forms of attention for them. -- Taketa (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more about giving to the community. Isn't that part of Academia? Voices like this are vital to the community they live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.68 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not explain how this article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia's purpose is not to "give a voice" to anyone. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible assertion of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete—Might eventually be notable as a public lecturer if the coverage continues to accrue, but that's a ways off yet. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:31, 29 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) czar ♔ 09:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Fennell

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. I thought she might meet #4 but the link to wakefield art gallery is dead and she isn't listed on their site Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be a publication by Wakefield Museum in 1978 entitled Louisa Fennell of Wakefield and Her World, 1847-1930. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec) The article is not good, but she seems to have been given her own exhibition, with a printed catalogue of 14pp, at the Wakefield Museum in 1978 Louisa Fennell of Wakefield and Her World, 1847-1930, 48 years after her death. That's enough for me. We might ask User:PatHadley, who can probably access a copy and improve the article, which is not great. She seems to have been a watercolourist and printmaker - nothing on Your Paintings (oils only), which also doesn't list the Wakefield Museum, though it covers the Town Hall etc (see West Yorkshire). Plenty of works show up on auction sites, confirming the drift of the article. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-jigged the article, and found a couple of references, as all the links were dead or irrelevant. diff. The Hepworth Wakefield seems to hold the Civic collection now, plus prints held in the libraries. I note google have one of their infobox thingies for her, using Wikipedia, which in itself suggests notability to me. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google found a short article about her from 2005 in the Wakefield Express, which gives Worthies of Wakefield by Kate Taylor (Wakefield Historical Publications 2004; ISBN 978-0901869463) as its source, and tells us that "Exhibitions of her work were held at Wakefield Art Gallery in 1930 and 1950 and at Wakefield Museum in 1978". Together with the exhibition catalogue mentioned above, this seems just about enough to meet WP:ARTIST#4 and the WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article still needs major clean-up. Fennell has had several retrospective shows after her death and her work, in its time, was well known. How many current artists will still be having retrospectives 48 years after their deaths, I wonder... Sionk (talk) 16:02, 25 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 16:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ricci

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

Not my field, but I do not see notability. I do see promotionalism, and ungrammatical writing DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches including Allmusic and Allaboutjazz are not turning up evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria. (Note: there is a Bob Ricci who does comedy music, but I think not the same person.) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per WP:BIO. No neutral secundary sources given by the article. I did a google search and found no coverage in secundary sources. -- Taketa (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to speedy delete. See below. Copied text, missing OTRS permission; author request; WP:SNOWBALL. -- Taketa (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I clicked on the only external link on the page, despite it being dead, and managed to get to the House of Jazz's official page. Scrolling through the artists it houses at the bottom, I found a page for Bob Ricci, so it's quite possible he's changed stage names. From this page, I also notice that his whole biography appears to have been copy-pasted. If he deserves an article, so does every other Joe Schmo who has ever done bar gigs. - Sweet Nightmares 14:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely primary-sourced article, shading toward advertorial territory, which doesn't actually make any substantive claim that its subject passes even one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Also WP:COI if what SweetNightmares says about the article being copy-pasted from another website is true. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of the page: Thank you from your input, I agree that I had primary-sourced the article. About the copy-pasting, it is also true; however, it should be mentionned that it is not plagiarism seeing that I am the one who wrote the original copied text. I was not completely aware of the kind of sources or contents which were allowed for Wikipedia articles. If permitted, I shall delete the page immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HatchCloud (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Wikipedia is not a question of whether you wrote the original content or not — it's a question of whether we've been explicitly given permission to reuse it. Anybody can claim to be the original author of any material on the internet, but we have no way of verifying that. So even if it's being copied and pasted by its own original author, we still can't keep it if WP:OTRS hasn't received an explicit permission for us to host the copied content. And even if that permission is filed, copied content is virtually always still in violation of one or more of our other content policies (e.g. writing tone, lack of real referencing, etc.), and thus still can't be kept on here without significant revision. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand and I agree. I thank you all for making me understand, this is not going to happen again. HatchCloud (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 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. Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Islam in Australia

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

Unredeemable POV mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response throwing "POV" accusations does not work in this instance to delete an article. Reliable sources were cited and some sections have been worked on by a number of editors to help keep it NPOV. If you point to a particular instance where the article represents "one side" then tag the section. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & refine The page is might have specific sections requiring additional supplementary information to help balance the article, but in no way is it, as DroverWife alleges, an "unredeemable" mess. And this page will actually help WP editors on Islam in Australia page to help distinguish between major events concerning Australian Muslim community and minor fringe ones that can be relegated to its own page on fundamentalists. Thir creation of this page benifits everyone overall. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If none of the material on this page would fly on Islam in Australia it shouldn't fly here. AlanS (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response the material "does fly" on the main page. The issue is only the amount of material on a separate topic (namely, Islamic radicalism, a recent trend) is taking away from the main article on Islam in Australia (covering 500 years). Editors on that page have noted the material is increasing in size. Hence the need for a seperate article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine The article provides an important reference-documentation of significant issues for both the Australian Islamic community and the Australian community generally. The issues raised are obviously contentious, but rather than just a simple deletion, this (new) article can be improved with the addition of a wider set of inputs. Sam56mas (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC). The presentation of this new Wikipedia site does require refinement, but the issues covered should not be simply dismissed or just deleted away. For instance the latest-breaking-news, radical-Islam impacts on Australia. Position of the Australian Prime Minister. Position of the Australian Justice Minister. Position of Australian Muslim Groups.. Sam56mas (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urm, that story about the PM refers to a (disgusting) incident in Iraq involving Iraqis and an American: clearly out of scope. The story about 'Australian Muslim groups' starts off by saying that these are the views of "leading members of the Muslim community", and so obviously are not the 'radicals' which this article is supposed to cover. The fact that you raise these stories as somehow being relevant to the topic of the article raises real questions with me about whether you're editing in good faith here, or are seeking to use Wikipedia to push your views. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't see why you have to attack a new editor as acting in bad faith. He added plenty of content, not all bad. Instead, as a more experienced editor, it would be in your interest to help him edit in a manner that is more NPOV. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT: the article doesn't seek to place the issue in context, and is a WP:POVFORK from the Islam in Australia article which violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Much of the content of the article is material which was rejected or disputed in the Islam in Australia article, and an obvious problem with this article is that there's no clear definition of what 'radical Islam' is, with many of the sources being claims in the tabloid media rather than sober analysis by actual experts on this topic. I just removed several claims which were cited to opinion articles by conservative columnists who are in no ways experts on the topic, as well as some claims about the views of a living person which weren't supported by the citation given: this was a clear violation of the core policy WP:BLP, and a blockable offence for whoever added it. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete the article is just a massive POV push by 2 editors, trying to paint Islamic culture as a massive problem. The term "radical" is incredibly subjective. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response That's a nice red herring. The page does not paint Islamic culture at all, but cites instances where radicalism appears a trend. I in fact have argued for moving some material from the main page (e.g. statements by radical clerics to help differentiate between the main Islamic community and culture in Australia and radical elements appearing only recently. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK from Islam in Australia.--TM 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:Fork only applies where the central coverage of a complete topic is being split onto two pages. In this case there is not even a section on radical Islam on the Islam in Australia page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE its also a WP:SYNTH the lead of the article has no association with the articles context, the sections in the body of the article have no direct association with each other except the implied religious connection. Gnan garra 10:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:NPOV hardly applies as a reason for deletion in this instance. Plenty of effort was made to keep language neutral, and additional edits further refined the article tone. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does apply because radical is relative term that isnt clearly defined, the choice of lead which has no relation to the article content is intended to incite a bias and place Islam in a negative light only that is where the NPOV applies. Then use of unbalance(undue) and unrelated events(wynth) means the regardless of the use of a refined tone the article still fails to be presented from a nuetral point of view. Gnan garra 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt. Quite a few primary sources used, giving away the fact that this is a work of WP:SYNTH AlanS (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. This may not be intentional on the part of the original article creator, but it's definitely a collection of news topics without any scholarly research tying them together. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this a case of WP:Idontlikeit? All the information is sourced from reliable news sources touching on a topic of concern to the Australian public. The photo of an Australian committing war raised concerns and awareness of growing radicalism and/or sympathy towards radicalism amongst some Australian Muslims. As per fork concerns, if anything, we should move all the tangential bits and pieces in Islam in Australia "Chronology" section on radical Muslim clerics to this page, replace all those bits and pieces with a single paragraph (titled "concerns over radicalism" or whatever) with a ||main|| redirect to this page. That way we can clean up the main Aussie Islam page from all those side bits. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid topic. The article may have some issues, but none of them insurmountable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

being a "valid" topic is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment scholarly sources on the topic:-study of terrorist network in Sydney (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19434472.2012.727096)-similar study of same group http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/364) The Australian govt's response to radical Islam in Australia by overhauling anti-terrorism laws, criticism of govt response. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100590950138) I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- TandF self disclaimer specifies the Society for Terrorism Research and our publisher Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content[18] where as WP:RS requires Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Society for terrorism research isnt an independent 3rd party, and by its own admission it doesnt make any effort as to the accuracy of that which it publishes. Gnangarra 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, didn't spot the non RS source there. Ignore and use the first and last only. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actual the unreliable source is the first and last one, the second is a case study of a police investigation of one specific terrorist group and not Islam.. the involvement of members of that group was found to be the result of family influences Gnan garra 12:19, 26 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 16:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atefeh Farzindar

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

Promotional article for non notable indivdual and her business enterprises. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SCHOLAR and WP:NPERSON. The subject has not received a well-known and significant award or honor. No indication for a widely recognized contribution in either academics or business areas. No neutral secundary source is given in the article. -- Taketa (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. The only "awards of distinction" listed on her official page at UdeM are:

Granted for 3-months visiting scholarship within the Erasmus Mundus Program (International Masters in Natural Language Processing & Human Language Technology) at university of Wolverhampton, UK: the visiting academic will be involved in research as well as teaching and supervision of the Masters students, 2010. Winner of the grand prize of the 2005 edition of the prestigious Polytechnic and University of Montreal Innovation & Entrepreneurship Contest.

Which are not notable. Of note, but not to be taken into consideration for the deletion of this article: the creator's user page mentions that (s)he is a publicist, and therefore likely has a COI. - Sweet Nightmares 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 NHL hat tricks

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

This is just listcruft. Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hat tricks, while rare, aren't so unusual that they merit a list of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Delete. I am inclined to agree. FWIW, two other editors created a series of lists that go back to at least 1989–90 NHL hat tricks. If this AFD ends in delete, a block nomination of the rest would likely follow. Resolute 14:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwikiing to the ice hockey Wikia may be valuable, however. Reso lute 14:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, and I'd have no objection to ashcanning the lot. What makes this any more noteworthy a list than, say, game misconducts? Ravenswing 15:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2013–14 NHL season. Probably not enough for it to stand on it's own, but it still could provide a useful component for a section in the parent article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd oppose on WP:UNDUE grounds; this would be a "section" that, with references, would be over half the size of the season article, which is far too much for what is effectively a trivia section. Ravenswing 01:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasons brought forward by the nominator. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is never done. An article just for a stat in a single season? Enigma^msg 15:10, 22 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 16:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Campbell (Ontario politician)

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

WP:BLP of an activist and perennial candidate, citing not a whit of reliable source coverage to get him past WP:GNG in lieu of his failure to satisfy WP:NPOL. Delete unless the sourcing can be beefed way up. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates are not notable when they loose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 17 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 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet any of our notability criteria and I couldn't find anything in terms of coverage to change that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 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. Without prejudice to the creation of a redirect to Bud j⚛e decker ^talk 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Wildman

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor who doesn't get past WP:NPOL for the role, and doesn't cite nearly enough reliable source coverage to get him past WP:GNG. (I was going to add the fact that its only cited source had the title "Picture of Jody Wildman's toes and a big piece of plastic" as evidence of non-notability — but in reality, the story itself isn't as inconsequential as that title makes it sound (it's actual albeit purely local interest "news", just with a bad attempt at editorial humour for a headline), but it still isn't consequential enough to make a smalltown mayor notable all by itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He falls extremely far short of the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 17 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 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet any of our notability criteria and I couldn't find anything in terms of significant coverage in non-local sources to change that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not establish notability under WP:POLITICIAN. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bud Wildman, where he is already briefly mentioned. PWilkinson (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and general notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:54, 28 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 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duotrope

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, at exactly the same time I was tagging this for AfD, creator User:Rick Norwood indicated plans to start working on this article in a week's time to establish its notability. I think this should be taking into account in not closing the discussion quickly. Boleyn (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. If notability is established, then we'll have to see how it stands. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:49, 12 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 00:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass our web guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, 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. Deor (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Lawrence

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

I don't believe that this person is notable. He was a civil servant, heading up a department. Nothing indicates that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even speedily. Just someone who holds a job.LaMona (talk) 03:08, 17 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 00:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No content to substantiate the importance of the figure or the position, and neither his predecessor nor job title are on Wikipedia. Also doesn't seem notable on the grounds of Wikipedia:SET. Upjav (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Questia search turns up mention of the subject in several 2007 article from the Cape Times etc. such as "Scopa Grills Officials about Ramatlakane's Security Overspend on Home", but these are role-holder mentions and I can see nothing substantial about the subject in his own right. Fails biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notable references. Probably too soon. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oddly, the previous position ( Director-General of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape ) seems the more notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 24 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) 14:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Travale

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

WP:BLP, edging dangerously into POV campaign brochure territory, of a rural mayor, with only a single primary source to support it. Municipality is large enough that he might pass WP:NPOL with a properly written, well-sourced and genuinely substantive article, so I'd be prepared to withdraw this if real reliable sourcing could be added, but even a big city mayor wouldn't be entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local lacks the pop to convey notability, nothing else to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 17 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 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I just went in a cut out some of the promotional rubbish - completed unnecessary and completely un-sourced. I'm Australian and our mayors are responsible for about that many people and a good many of them are considered notable. In general, I'm not a believer in the "other stuff" argument and I'd like to see some actual coverage to get us closer to WP:GNG. I couldn't find much but a three-time candidate and now-mayor of a municipality like that should have something out there. It's not enough for me to suggest we keep it - I suppose I'd be okay with deletion without prejudice against recreation if the situation changes (which I suppose applies to all articles anyway). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors can be notable enough for inclusion, absolutely — I said right in my original nomination that he'd probably qualify if the sourcing here were better, and I agree that I'd have no objection to recreation in the future if the sourcing improved. But mayors aren't granted an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, just for being mayors, if the sourcing isn't up to scratch. Based on the rest your comment, I realize that you understand that already — but just wanted to clarify in case my original comment wasn't explicit enough about that. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we're on the same page. As I said, I'd be okay with deletion (I suppose my opinion here should be interpreted as weak delete if anything). It's more a suggestion that there should be something out there rather than that there is something out there. Because there isn't (or nothing that we could find) it should probably be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage to support notability claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:49, 29 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 would be great to have more opinions, but on the basis of three existing votes the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Kalmbach

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

WP:BLP of a rural mayor who doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL for the role. She might qualify for an article if the sourcing were actually good enough to get her past WP:GNG, but virtually all the references here are either primary sources, press releases or local community media which is not widely distributed enough to count as evidence of encyclopedic notability (and even if they did, there aren't enough of them to pass GNG with.) Further, the only source here that passes muster, the Toronto Star, is sourcing a general fact about the municipality she was the mayor of, while not actually mentioning her name at all — thus failing to be any sort of coverage, substantive or otherwise, of her. I'd be willing to withdraw this if the sourcing could be majorly beefed up, but this, as written, ain't cutting it. (Best part: the special section which clarified, before I stripped it as trivia, that before and after her term as mayor her short form honorific title was "Mrs." Wow, who would have guessed?) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far short of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 17 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 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I share the nominator's concerns. I couldn't find anything that would substantiate a pass against WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:15, 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vrebosch

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor who does not pass WP:NPOL for the role, and not citing nearly enough (or really any at all, actually) reliable source coverage to get him past WP:GNG instead. It also merits mention that the article was originally created by User:Louisevrebosch, a conflict of interest. It may have been legitimate by the standards of 2007, but by 2014-vintage standards the notability and sourcing simply aren't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls amazing far short of notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 16 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 00:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, COI aside, there isn't enough there to establish notability. There's plenty of local coverage but nothing to suggest notability beyond a very small geographic area. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree to reasons above. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:52, 21 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. This is a little on the edge for a delete consensus. If anybody has some new information to present which would argue for keep, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll consider relisting this. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sillekens

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Prodded by User:Jimfbleak, deprodded by User:Brianhe - however I don't think that the current expansion satisfies notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's on the bubble but in-depth coverage in a German newspaper, plus two television items from two other countries, seem to establish significant coverage from multiple independent sources. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 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, JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 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 02:17, 11 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not seem to be major, neither do the articles written about him. Not notable yet, I would say. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I don't speak much German, but http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/erkelenz/mit-dem-motorrad-um-die-welt-aid-1.704342 this] at the least appears to be a substantial and independent story on Sillekens. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:15, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sheen

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

Appears to be a marginally non-notable individual lacking secondary references of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. More of a vanity article than Encylopedic in nature. reddogsix (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 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, Davewild (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are mostly listings and non-independent (company bios, etc.) and do not show that the subject is Notable. Stesmo (talk) 05:55, 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 02:19, 11 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the existing references are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find anything better. In addition, the article reads like a promotional piece (including the inexplicable picture of his car).--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:50, 29 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's been more than a month, and only two people have participated—the nom and the article's creator. Since both advocate deletion, so be it. Deor (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ErlKing (film)

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

Short film who's only claim to notability is that it was shown at Sundance. Fails WP:NF Darx9url (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator. I must say I didn't recall having created this -- but there I am, all right. For an animated short, I'd suggest that the Animation World Network capsule review cited in the article could be considered one example of significant secondary coverage. I've been able to find a record of what appear to be two short reviews in librarian publications, fwiw. I am rather surprised that I created this. I have some vague recollection that this was a split from some other work or similarly named article. I make it a point to never create a WP:ONESOURCE article—or so I thought—and I for one would have no objection if the article cannot be saved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

- I'd checked some of those -- checked the rest since. Nuttin there. You did a nice job expanding the article but I don't see the significant indie coverage that's gonna sway anyone, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 28 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) 03:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this indeed going to be deleted, it would be ideal to WP:PRESERVE a mention in the main article on the Goethe work. Problem is, all such popular work were unceremoniously blanked here, which is quite a loss. I'll try to recreate that as a list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created it as List of works based on Der Erlkönig. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So at this point the article creator (me!) !votes delete, if only to move this along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 3 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 02:30, 11 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 19:32, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirangi Ashar

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

Article and search fail to show Hirangi Ashar is notable at this time. Stesmo (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 13 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:02, 17 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:31, 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 no consensus. This was not an easy close. Numerically, the keep arguments are in the majority, but I don't find most of them to be persuasive. The non-persuasive keeps boil down to:

Keep because it could be merged into Lucy Burns Institute
Keep because other reliable sources have cited material in Judgepedia.
Keep because Wikipedia articles have cited Judgepedia, so it benefits Wikipedia readers to know something about Judgepedia.

None of which have any foundation in wikipedia policy. The most persuasive of the keep arguments was MrX's list of what he claims are reliable sources (Marketing Weekly News, Telecommunications Weekly, and Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution). Although there are good counter-arguments that these are insufficient to establish WP:N, they were (just barely) enough to keep me from calling this a clean delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judgepedia

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

A notability tag was placed on the article, and after my repeated attempts to establish notability via the insertion of what I deemed to be reliable sources, another editor was left unsatisfied that the article was notable, and the notability tag was re-instated. If the article's subject is truly not notable, it should be deleted, rather than just leaving it with a notability tag that can't seem to be addressed Schematica (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is a discussion underway at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute about merging Judgepedia into that page. OP has said a merger would work, and would not work. A WP:BLAR for this page was recommended. Well then, keep so that the BLAR can be accomplished. (Or at least close this AFD so that discussions can be consolidated.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't seen significant coverage of Judgepedia in independent secondary sources, as required by WP:GNG. I don't think a merge into Lucy Burns Institute would work either, as that article doesn't appear to be notable either. Both should go, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The best sources about Judgepedia appear to me to be this article [19] profiling the organization in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, this article [20] in the New York Times ("Those brush fires also translate into a host of new Web sites and tools that the alliance hopes will gain hold. It now boasts three 'pedias:' Judgepedia.org for vetting judges at the state level; Ballotpedia.org for initiatives and elections; and SunshineReview.org for transparency in government"), and this article [21] in Politico ("The nonprofit and nonpartisan Lucy Burns Institute, which publishes WikiFOIA, Ballotpedia and Judgepedia, is out today with a list of the 15 top races that its staffers are following closely...." article then proceeds to the list the races, including judicial races covered on Judgepedia). However, I've been told on the article's talk page that none of these sources, individually or together, establish sufficient notability. Schematica (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times and Politico sources only mention Judgepedia in passing. They're what's called incidental coverage and do not establish notability. The MetNews source certainly covers Judgepedia in more depth. The issue there is that MetNews is a tiny news outlet with an extremely limited local circulation (actually called "tiny" by the LA Times here, here). The ultimate question is whether significant coverage only by such a small outlet satisfies notability requirements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another source on the website is this. FWIW, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have used Judgepedia as a source. 32.218.34.133 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mention is of questionable reliability. It was published by PR Watch, a branch of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is largely an advocacy organization. Over the years I've seen comments in the Talk userspace going both ways on the reliability of PR Watch sources. As for Judgepedia being cited by the NY Times and WaPo, those citations are what's called incidental coverage and do not establish notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Judgepedia being cited by the NY Times and WaPo, those citations strongly suggest that those highly reliable sources consider Judgepedia to be a reliable source. 32.218.34.133 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about whether Judgepedia is reliable. We're talking about whether it's notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, Judgepedia is an open wiki and therefore it is absolutely not a reliable source, no matter how it's been cited.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well heeled RS have have used this pedia in a tangential form. However the detailed article from the (much) lesser known MetNews (but nonetheless still a quality RS) should be enough to keep. Though WP:WEBCRIT says "multiple" "non-trivial" mentions from RS establishes the threshold, the growing number of cites makes deletion seem like throwing the baby out with the bath water.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the growing number of cites? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw about a dozen RS citing Judgapedia for one thing or another. 3 or 4 were from 2014, so it appears it is gaining traction as a resource. Unfortunately that was on my desktop which is now shut down for the night. I'll try and find that for you later.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I just didn't understand type of citations you were referring to. Thanks for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~for the moment.~~ Wikipedia is not short of paper. While it is mentioned in other articles and while there is content imported into Wikipedia from that site, it benefits the readers to know something about the source. We have articles on obscure authors and on what are now obscure journals often because they are cited in Wikipedia articles. However I have strong reservations if text can be imported from Judgepedia and I do not think that it is a legitimate reliable sources but should only be used under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT criteria, if so then this page can not be justified as useful to Wikipeida content. I intend to pose a question about this issue involving copyright permissions on the appropriate places. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Judgepedia prior to 15 June 2009, text could and was copied into Wikipedia articles from Judepedia articles. I therefore think keeping an article is useful -- or if not an article, a redirect to a paragraph in another article that mentions Judgepedia and explains what it is. This has been is done for Wikinfo for which there is some content in Wikipedia (eg see Harry Vardon), and the use of having a mention on Wikipedia was shown to be useful while Wikinfo was down. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Judgepedia and stated that Judgepeida is not a reliable source but under certain circumstances can be used under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it cited by respected publications, but it also seems to be modestly notable based on coverage about the website itself. I found coverage in two journals, Marketing Weekly News and Telecommunications Weekly, and a book,Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution.- Mr X 13:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Judgepedia article. The book MrX mentions is already used as a citation, as is the article in Telecommunications Weekly. Schematica (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added these sources. They don't include links. Could you please supply links, or the relevant excerpts? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, links aren't required: "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." Books are usually in libraries, and almost always on Google Books [22]. I personally used my HighBeam subscription to access the Telecommunications Weekly article. Schematica (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for you to post links in the article. I'm asking for your help here on the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "could you please supply links" and I did. Now you don't want the links after all....? Schematica (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the front page of a 210-page book isn't helpful. The community needs to know how these sources were cited. As you added the citations, presumably you read the sources. Remember that editing here is a collaborative process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So very sorry my link wasn't helpful to you. How could I be so thoughtless. Next time, perhaps consider searching for "Judgepedia" within the Google Book edition with the handy-dandy search bar. In about two seconds, voila!

Page 167 "Judging the Judges"

"In the previous chapter we discussed the idea of reviewing the performance of sitting judges who are standing for reelection. One of the more robust online models for achieving this goal is is called Judgepedia, which fashions itself like Wikipedia and offers one of the biggest databases on judges and courts. But there's a catch. The problem with "wikis" is that they often overweight the beliefs of their contributors. This results in some rather curious postings and omissions on Judgepedia....yet nowhere on the Judgepedia site does it mention why the Ninth Circuit's decisions continually get overturned: because they are activist hard leftist, and do not reflect the limits of our Constitution. Judgepedia actually goes out of its way to direct its readers to a "persuasive empirical argument that the Ninth Circuit is not liberal leaning...." Schematica (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as significant coverage, particularly in the context of a 210-page book. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to go against the tide here and say that I don't think this meets WP:WEB. The sources provided are for the large part either trivial or in marginal and obscure sources that don't suggest that they're reliable. I acknowledge that Judgepedia itself has been cited by reliable publications, however this is irrelevant in the context of determining notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:07, 30 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tedman

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This person does not meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I have searched for significant coverage of their work but haven't been able to find anything. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your reasons. All the publications are easily variable. For example on Taylor and Francis site. I'm sorry it seems quite fake.I suggest You do not have enough knowledge on the subject matter to be able to comment on the validity of the article.

One point about quality: Tedman's work challenges the media politically, it is not unlikely that the media dislikes this, and the media is the source of what is called 'coverage' above. 'Coverage' seems to be a term used in the media such as the popular press.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 August 2014 — Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't dispute that this is about a real academic but they do not appear to be notable. WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC explain what is required for an academic's biography to be included in Wikipedia and I am unable to find sources demonstrating that these criteria are met. Whether I have enough knowledge of the subject is immaterial. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the criteria that you have referred to:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

IN ANSWER TO THAT THE PERSON HAS PUBLISHED MANY TIMES IN THE WORLDS LEADING JOURNAL FOR THIS SUBJECT 'RETHINKING MARXISM'. HE IS THE SECOND MOST FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS JOURNAL. ALL OF HIS TEXTS WERE PUT THROUGH THE PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE, WHICH IF YOU HAVE EVER HAD AN ACADEMIC TEXT PUBLISHED, IS A LONG AND ARDUOUS PROCESS.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

THIS PERSON HAS DEVELOPED AND CONTRIBUTED MAJOR CONCEPTS ON THE THEME OF AESTHETICS. HE HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED WITH DEVELOPING THIS BY THE PEERS THAT HAVE REFERREED HIS WORK. HIS CONCEPT OF AN AESTHETIC LEVEL OF PRACTICE HAS BEEN USED AND SITED BY SEVERAL WRITERS.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

THE PERSON'S WORK FEATURES IN SEVERAL BOOKS. HE HAS A COLLECTIVE BODY OF WORK KNOWN TO THOSE WORKING IN THE FIELD OF AESTHETICS OR MARXIST AESTHETICS, OR IS WIKI ONLY INTERESTED IN FEATURING SUPERSTAR ACTORS OR BESTSELLER WRITERS I.E. PEOPLE WHO GAIN A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE BUT WHOSE WORK IS OFTEN NOT MERITED TO BE THAT GOOD OR ENDURING?

If you had really bothered to research the work of this person then you would easily be able to find these things out. I'm afraid I can tell that you have little knowledge of the subject or you would not really be making statements that in fact lack any real content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you have missed the most important part of the criteria "as substantiated through reliable sources". This means that we require sources that discuss why Tedman's is significant and this is considerably more than simply being cited by other authors. According to google scholar, the works listed in this article have barely been cited either: [23]. I'd appreciate if you stopped assuming that I am acting maliciously: please assume good faith. SmartSE (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I find this ridiculous. What do you call a reliable source? I ask you the question because you are very vague: What do you consider "as substantiated through reliable sources??." There has been many discussions as to why Tedman is significant and these are available on the internet, but if you refuse to read them what can I do? Do you not understand the peer-review process, that the journal that publishes the work has "peer-review integrity", that his essays are listed on the "Taylor and Francis" site. All this is substantiated by the academic community. The listing on Google Scholar gives 19 citing? Again what is your criteria for "barely been cited" this is totally, vague and opionated but also without substance. Given this it sounds like the only "reliable source" that you know of is yourself. I find your comments slanderous of the integrity of the peer-review process and if they continue will report them as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I included a link to where you can read about what is considered 'reliable' here. In short, it means books, newspapers and journals and for the purposes of demonstrating notability, they need to address the subject, rather than being written by the subject. There are millions of peer-reviewed papers published every year but we do not aim to have a biography on each and every author. By 'barely cited' I mean that from what I can tell, those papers listed in the article have rarely been cited by other authors: this has 4 (2 by the subject), this has 2 (1 by the subject) and this has 2. Publication and citation density varies greatly between fields, but unless there are citations elsewhere, I think most people would agree that this is few citations. I won't bother to respond to your ad hominem and once again request that you discuss this in a civil manner. SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the link that demonstrates what is required as "reliable" can you show me this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.78.234 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the subject is cited on Scholar: http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&q=%22Gary+Tedman%22&btnG=&lr= Are you saying everything the subject has written and published as peer-reviewed needs to be mentioned in the article. This is not true of other Wiki articles. This is not an author who has published one of the millions of peer-reviewed essays published each year, this author has published 8 original essays in top journals and in his book Aesthetics and Alienation, once again, I suggest, he advances new and original concepts regarding aesthetics. Again, this is mostly recognisable to those working in the discipline and given that aesthetics is a specialist and scholarly discipline such work is slower to come to the fore than pop music for example, yet I also suggest it is far more profound and consequential in the long term. It seems that there is a lack of interest in articles about serious writers but the search is on for media friendly type personalities and journalists and this is what is being qualified as notable.

There are about 9,000 entries regarding the author and his work on Google. Some of these, for example Beverley Skegg's discussion of the author: http://books.google.fr/books?id=giHmlyzuE34C&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=%22Gary+Tedman%22&source=bl&ots=1SCNjFlZoM&sig=WYMbIGARL0AGrc41rZRQc3dEYc8&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=yBjqU8bzKMim0QXZ14CICQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Gary%20Tedman%22&f=false ...are reliable sources, as Skeggs is a University Professor, but this does not feature on Google scholar, which I suggest isn't that much of a reliable source because of this type of occlusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.78.234 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also work by Iona Singh, and her best-selling book, also not specifically mentioned on scholar: http://books.google.fr/books?id=KjKCKs1TO0UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false that discusses Tedman's concepts in a comprehensive manner. Likewise in the refereed essays: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935690410001676212#.U-ofuuN_s4A and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455750601164642#.U-of4uN_s4A each of which base their ideas on Tedman's concept of an aesthetic level, but also not mentioned on Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Hello Smartse, can the article now be removed from 'articles for deletion'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think those sources make much of a difference - they are just normal academic discourse and citations. This discussion will run for at least a week and hopefully some other experienced editors will come and take a look as well. I will ask some with more expertise in the humanities if they can do so. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what you require other than "normal academic discourse and citations." are you looking for something other than normal? You have asked that the work be "substantiated through reliable sources". Are you saying these are not reliable sources, is it because they are normal? What extra-normal sources will you consider reliable? Why do you find work published in peer-review journals "unreliable", surely these are the most reliable sources and again please state what YOU do find reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're going round in circles and I still don't think you've grasped how we determine the notability of a subject. Taking an example of an article I wrote, Redcliffe Salaman is primarily notable due to the first two sources - an obituary in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society and an entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, further his substantial impact is shown by his book being called 'unprecented' 50 years later. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this subject is never going to fulfil that criteria, firstly, he is not dead yet, and secondly 50 years are not up yet...You seem to bypass what Redcliffe Salaman has actually produced and give no reference to that in your reasons. The work of the author in question has been called "groundbreaking" and "brilliant" and these critiques can also be added to the article if you would like. We are not going round in circles, after the evidence placed in front of you either you don't have enough knowledge to judge the validity of this person's work or you have your own political agenda with regard to it.

Note I have asked Drmies and his talk page stalkers if they can have a look at this discussion. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for pinging me, SmartSE. I can't find anything either--in MUSE, EBSCO, MLA. What is required for this person to pass PROF is evidence that the person has had an influence on the field. I cannot find a single review of any of his books, and while Google Scholar delivers a few mentions of his name (including in Class, Self, Culture, where he's mentioned once), I don't see any substantial coverage of his work. Even if Zero was a well-established and reputable press (I had never heard of it and it doesn't have much of a presence), having a book published by them is not in itself a reason to assume notability. In short, publishing is normal activity for any scholar; being written about is what makes notability. But maybe Randykitty can find more than I can. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tedman's work is covered comprehensibly in the book Color, Facture, Art and Design, mentioned in the article, but if the text is not on-line how will you know this. Here is a link to a review of Tedman's book : http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/831
  - Please sign your messages, and have a look at Wikipedia:Indentation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Your comments do not seem to be "in good faith" with the authors of this page who clearly have substantial knowledge of the subject. The ideas of the subject are well-known in the specialist field of Marxist Aesthetics (see wiki Marxist Aesthetic page)however some of his references such as in the book Color, Facture, Art and Design are not available on-line. Signed Althusserian.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althusserian (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's not a very nice thing to say. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by Althusserian: this placed here for clarity's sake-- Drmies (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the databases checked by Drmies and others, I had a look at the Web of Science (which includes the Arts and Humanities Citation Index), but there is no "Tedman G" in that database at all. In general, I'm not a big fan of GScholar, because it invariably overestimates the impact and number of citations, but in this case, that is actually revealing. The paltry citation record means that this person has not (yet?) made a measurable impact on his field. So, yes, he has a number of peer-reviewed publications, but publishing is what we academics do for a living and that in itself doesn't make one notable, only demonstrable impact does. To the SPAs (SPA=single purpose account) here, I would like to add that this is in no way a value judgment. It is not up to us, WP editors, to decide what is important or not. As an encyclopedia, we do not cover our own judgments and opinions, but only what others have written. If Tedman's contributions are as valuable as you say, then I don't doubt that this will soon be evident (without waiting 50 years) in the citation record, because other people will write about his ideas. Please realize that all editors here are editing in good faith. Yes, perhaps you are more knowledgeable about this field than the other people here are, but those other people are obviously more knowledgeable about how and why things are done in particular ways at WP. Please read the policies that others have linked to above (especially WP:RS) and hopefully you will then understand better the motivation behind the "delete" !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOk thanks. signed Aesheticinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Randykitty and thank you for referring me to the deletion procedures page. I have decided to remove the deletion tag from Tedman's article, as is suggested is my right. I will explain the reasons why: I feel I am qualified within this field enough to know that although the subject's work has not been written about or referred to by a great number of writers, the ones that have referred to it find it extremely important and original and in this sense it is very influential. I feel this merits a certain notability in terms of quality and not quantity. The work has depth and is intense in a way, that many academics who sometimes just churn out papers in an inventory like fashion and without much substance, do not have. I hope you are able to understand the spirit of this decision. regards, signed aesheticinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aesheticinfo, you may not remove that template. A decision to keep or delete will be made based on a community discussion (this one right here). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am familiar with the work of this subject and agree with Althusserian and aesheticinfo. Signed socrates12345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates12345 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aesheticinfo. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one citation, and it is not notable. None of the listed articles or books are about him, they are about the topic area he works in. Therefore, there are no 3rd party references that establish notability. LaMona (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* I will say no more on this, whether to Delete or not Delete, but, Drmies, I note that you have made biographies of people such as Mary Hooper (author) and presumably the criteria you are applying very strictly here could equally be applied to this writer. Also the same argument about sockpuppetry, where your friends all make the same argument, which may or may not be true, but from the point of view of Wikipedia criteria is not valid. Why are you so interested in this deletion? Can you clarify your reasons because I think mine fulfil at least the minimum criteria for inclusion. My worry is, that any interested party could place many borderline, dull, biographies such as Mary Hooperon Wikipedia simply to justify acting as a kind of gang with a political motive to "police" political entries that they disagree with. I am not accusing you of this but I have suspicions that it may be happening in some cases, so I say this openly. This would be bad for Wikipedia whether from the right or the left.Aestheticinfo 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete We have two ways of determining whether we should have an article about a person. One is the general guideline, WP:GNG or WP:BIO, which requires that independent reliable sources have written significantly about the person. That is not the case for this subject. The other is specifically for academics, WP:PROF, which requires that the person's own writing must have been significantly cited by other academics, as a way of showing that the person is a leader or influential in their field. Here is the citation record for Mr. Tedman [24]; it shows very few citations of his work by other people. So this guideline does not qualify him either. The result is that the article should be deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per OP and previous posters, there is insufficient evidence of notability -- either general or academic -- to warrant inclusion. --Larry (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:NOTEBLP, lacks significant coverage, lacks adequate notice in his own profession. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ In Wikipedia: Notability- General nobability guideline, it states; "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Therefore... See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Scholarship - Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

And Re Rethinking Marxism Abstracting and indexing[edit] This journal is abstracted and indexed in the following databases:

America: History and Life CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts International Bibliography of the Social Sciences VINITI Database RAS Scopus SocINDEX

also on Wikipedia"s reliable third-party sources: How to meet the requirement[edit] An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. 90.39.78.234 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Aestheticinfo 07:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I note Drmies that you have an article entitled Alan Marks for example. I suggest that Gary Tedman's work is at least parallel to that of Alan Marks in terms of notability. Why however do you merit that Tedman's article should be deleted? Likewise with Patricia Rinehart? ...however personally I see no problem with your listings, perhaps they could be of use... Aestheticinfo 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aesheticinfo, I'm striking out your word "keep" above; you only get to say "keep" or "delete" once, in effect that is your "vote". "Rethinking Marxism" may be a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, but that's not the problem. The problem is the lack of any significant writing ABOUT Mr. Tedman, there or anywhere else. Also, please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that is not an argument that carries any weight here. --MelanieN (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "we"? Am I not a part of 'we'?

The main article on Tedman carries a number of independent citations of which there are others. It is true that there are not the amount that usually come with the strict sciences.
I also suggest that many contributors to this delete page seem to come more from science backgrounds where the databases and the method of citation are different. Aestheticinfo 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One point about quality: Tedman's work challenges the media politically, it is not unlikely that the media dislikes this, and the media is the source of what is called 'coverage' above. 'Coverage' seems to be a term used in the media such as the popular press.Aestheticinfo 09:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this and will make mistakes. It would be nice if you would appreciate this. Yes I do realise that being new is not an excuse too! Aestheticinfo 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note. Aesthetics and Aliennation. 2012. Zero Books. Listed on Worldcat.org at numerous libraries including Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and Duke.Aestheticinfo 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote this entry. I am not the subject and the subject had no knowledge of it. I am not an institution or backed by any institution, I am independent. Aestheticinfo 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Smartse states earlier that he was going to ask other community members. This was clearly canvassing support for his own opinions which has prevented a correct discussion regarding the page. These members also repeatedly use abbreviations, which is confusing to less experienced community members such as myself. I notice again that the concept of "quality" of the work, seems totally omitted from the conversation.Aestheticinfo 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a notification, not canvassing as we weren't really getting anywhere squabbling between ourselves were we? Asking other experienced editors was the sensible way to make sure I hadn't completely misjudged this. I can't recall interacting with LaMona, MelanieN, Traveling Man (Larry) or Bejnar in the past either, so they have seemingly come here from WP:AFD and made their own decision about the article. How is it possible for us to judge quality when there has been so little coverage? As editors it is not up to us to decide whether something is of quality or not, we follow the published sources (of which there are none discussing the subject). SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - publishing and being the subject of a publication are not the same thing. We require the latter and arguments that the subject is responsible for the former don't carry much weight. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAA3AAA (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't getting anywhere because you and others keep repeating the same thing over and over without engaging in any genuine discussion.

There are a number of issues here;

'Coverage'. What do you mean by this?

Is it an appropriate term for this subject: and for a person who is presenting a radical political position? Wikipedia criteria is not only concerned with "coverage". I say it again, it sounds like you mean popular media coverage.

There are references and reliable sources, in particular of high quality on the article page. You are ignoring these. Why?

The subject's work is antagonistic to the media, yet the media is the place that would determine coverage. It would be asking the improbable to expect the media to be very interested in this subject. Aesthetics is already not exactly part of mainstream media coverage or even the academic mainstream. This does not mean it is not important.

The concept of the aesthetic level is an analysis of how feelings function in relation to the economic and the social. As Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses enable an understanding of the methods by which ideology affects subjects in the political sense, the aeshetic level refers to this control on the level of feelings and mediation. Tedman has defined it using Marxist theory, Freud, Althusser and Walter Benjamin. It is a hugely neglected area with potential to open up a new territory for Marxist analysis.

The coverage that exists is not in places where you would find it on-line, but exists in books and journals not freely available on the internet. I have more references that can be placed in the article but this would begin to make it too long in my opinion. I can accept that this person is relatively new and does not warrant reams of text, but the work is notable. I would suggest there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity, quite strange in the circumstances, if you care to study them seriously. The popular media and the academy choose what they think is safe to look at and highlight but as we all know this is not always reliable, especially with challenging and new theories. This certainly is a theory of media, and by explaining what the media does in critical detail, can one expect the current media to celebrate that?

Just a word on the question of the reputability of Zero Books. Zero Books has a reputation for publishing a number of new radical authors such as Owen Hatherley and Laurie Penny, and it has been successful in this.Aestheticinfo 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity...". Dude, just stop. We've shown you what is required and we've (believe it or not) heard these ridiculous arguments before. You're not going to get special treatment or special consideration or some special criteria by which this subject is assessed different to all others. Stop posting incoherent walls of text - you're not helping yourself. Read the guidelines and play by them of go and post your "information" somewhere else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if there ever was a case of WP:BLUDGEON, aesthetic info meets it. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I've been on Wikipedia for several years and no argument has convinced me more of a case for a lack of reliable sources than the completely illogical "...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity..." It's as if this person has ironically admitted lack of notability. And please aesthetic info, no long winded response to this. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have given reliable academic sources, to keep repeating this is not helping the discussion. Also please refrain from insults such as "longwinded". What is this "We" thing? It presents me as "the other" and you as the "in-crowd". I am finding this almost like racism. The issue of quality is important because in the end that is the only determinant. There seems to be an awful lot of people interested in deleting this article, for something so allegedly not notable. Aestheticinfo 17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Libstar, saying "completely illogical" is not an argument, it is just a statement. Why do you, and others who want deletion completely avoid talking about the subject matter? And again, I need to say that lack of publicity does not mean lack or notability. You, along with most of the others on this page, continue to confuse the two. Aestheticinfo 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

like racism? your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Quality" is only indirectly important here. If something is very good, and people write about that in reliable sources, then it is notable. If something is very bad, and people write about that in reliable sources, then it is notable, too. Notability is not the same thing as "deserving", "quality", and such, only about whether something has been noted and we can verify that in reliable sources. If you don't get acquainted with these things, then this AfD debate will remain mysterious to you... --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Aesthetic info do you have a connection to Gary Tedman? LibStar (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course I have a connection with Gary Tedman. I have used his concept of an aesthetic level of practice to explain and analyse art and design, publishing several peer-reviewed essays and books on the theme. I also know him.Aestheticinfo 06:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs)

please read our conflict of interest guidelines. this explains your behavior regarding this article. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for SmartSE, Drmies, Randykitty, Libstar, Stalwart1111, LaMona, Melanie N Benjar: Do any of you have a connection?

By the way my relation to the subject does not contravene Wikipedia rules on conflict of interest such as: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." because it is in the interests of Wikipedia to have such information and references on their site and this is the most important issue here, as far as I am concerned. The general gist of this Afd page seems sided against articles with intellectual-philosophical content and related questions, it is important for Wikipedia to balance that.Aestheticinfo 10:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! We're all here to improve this online encyclopedia and promote a neutral point of view. BTW, thanks for that gem about "a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity", that really made my day! --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the converse must be true, that is, too much publicity is kind of sign that an article must be deleted. I have zero connection to other editors or indeed your friend Tedman.LibStar (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our notability & verifiability guidelines, per now-self-admitted COI, and per "there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity" being one of the flat-out goofiest things I've heard here in many years, and that's saying something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing. You are all saying exactly the same things, and insulting. And refuse to enter into any real debate or conversation, and refuse to answer any of my questions. Its as if I've walked into someone's personal toyroom.

On this goofy idea: well, there are plenty of figures in history who were considered not notable in their lifetimes who turned out to be, strangely, very notable later, like Vermeer for instance, died penniless and not in Wikipedia at all believe it or not. I think this is not healthy, only time can tell really for anyone, but we are only talking about notability, not mega stardom or Antonio Banderas-like status. Here we are dealing with Marxist Aesthetics, not blockbuster films. But I would still argue there is leeway in Wikipedia's criteria for notability that's sensible and does not reflect the delete comments 'vote stacked' here. The refusal to discuss seems to me to be politically motivated, for instance the studious avoidance of any discussion of quality, the resort to teenage type insults and provocations etc, all very like typical rightist trolling on blogs etc... By the way, conflict of interest is when you put the subject of the article ahead of Wikipedia's interest, I do not think I have done that, I am writing all this in good faith, I like Wikipedia, such a free resource is very good, but it takes work and time and serious thought, I don't see much evidence of that here. Aestheticinfo 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One point: in Marxist aesthetics especially and in aesthetics in general (in philosophy), there are very few authors who have presented a complete theory on this subject, right or wrong, good or bad, Marcuse perhaps, but you could not call this a theory, more a discussion. There is Adorno's 'Aesthetic Theory' but this too is not really a theory. Gary Tedman's work is notable in this respect, on the left, though there is also Jacques Ranciere. Aestheticinfo 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One consequence of COI is often that people cannot judge something objectively anymore and start to overestimate its importance. Then, if other editors disagree with them, it is clear that thus cannot be for any rational reason, hence they must be right-wing trolls. Funny, last week I was a left-wing antisemite (although it is possible that that particular editor thought I was a right-wing Zionist). --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would call the statements and emotive insults on this page made by most of the editors, irrational. Any attempt to lead them towards making coherent or rational explanations are shouted down, ignored or called 'goofy'? Aestheticinfo 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with redirection (to whatever target) at editorial discretion. Deor (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of You

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

Unable to find the songs on any charts. Fails WP:NSONG. Articles says they were on two charts maintained by Radio & Records. Radio & Records shut down and their last chart release was June 5, 2009. This song was released on September 15, 2009. The album the song is from was on the Billboard Christian Ablum chart Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 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, Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 12 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 19:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I initially wanted to give this page a chance since it was so new, but I cannot find any mentions of the song on the web other than lyrics pages and the music video for the song. The information here should be moved to Red discography and this page be made a redirect. Gccwang (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Innocence & Instinct, which seems a more relevant target than the discography page (although that would be suitable too). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of most downloaded Android applications

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor. From the article talk page:

The content violates the guidelines under Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's completely based on original research.

All entries have been manually selected. There is no guarantee that there aren't more or even more successful apps. Google itself doesn't have alltime toplists, new entries have to be found and evaluated manually. Chance is high, that this list is incomplete and can't be corrected. At this point, correctness of this list is depending on conincidence, not on reliable sources.
On top of that, it totally neglects the fact that there is more than one App Store for Android (e.g. Amazon Appstore, GALAXY Apps or F-Droid).
Neither this list nor Google provide detailed information that could allow a more or less precise ranking. Google only offers a range of download numbers for each app, like 1 to 5 billion (GMail). Possible variance is very high (up to 5x).
The criteria of 100 million downloads seems an arbitrary selection. GMail for example has at least ten times as much downloads.
It's very unlikely, that with 1 billion Android phones on the market (Sept. 2013), all these phones have downloaded Gmail once again. Thus, Google is counting installations, including preinstalled apps, not downloads. -- 89.14.24.193 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated in 2012 under a different title. That discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most popular Android apps by number of downloads) ended with a result of weak keep.

I'll officially remain neutral on the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:L requirements. Even though the source data at Google Play gives imprecise numbers, I think it is useful. In addition, I don't think going to Google Play for download numbers is original research. Frmorrison (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is original reasearch to claim these are the most downloaded apps if there is no source, that compares all available apps on the market and confirms that this is the case. At the moment it's the list of the most _installed_ (Google term) apps Wikipedia authors have found so far. And it's still ignoring the numbers of other Android shops. -- 89.12.43.197 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many things wrong with this article. It's original research, not verifiable, always changing based on the number of downloads, etc. @Frmorrison, I think you need to read WP:USEFUL. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:28, 29 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 (talk) @ 09:21, 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, Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 12 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 19:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the closing reasons given in the first AfD. The article makes it clear that the counts are only from Google Play where ordered lists of the most downloaded apps of each type is readily available. I suppose the article title could include 'Google Play', but that might make it a little long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, verifiable. Don't really see the problem. While a BIGNUMBER isn't necessarily guaranteed notability for a subject, ranked lists such as these can be a good way to organise info (like our lists of highest-rated TV shows, bestselling books, music, etc.). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 22 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.