Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Education Addicts[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability for this band. Article lacks 3rd party RS refs. A search reveals no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Dialectric. I notice that the two EL in the article are both dead links. Tomas e (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S. Meganathan[edit]

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

I was not sure if I should have gone for CSD, but the subject looks non-notable. There are close to 1000 colleges in Tamil Nadu alone, being chairman (owning one) doesn't make one notable. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are primary; no WP:RS to indicate that the subject has individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the general notability guideline is met. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amira al Hayb[edit]

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

Trivial subject and about a non-notable person. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 10. Snotbot t • c » 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this deletion. The subject of the article is notable, as evidenced by newspaper coverage, interviews with her and scholarly works in which her life choices are discussed. Article is also well-sourced.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) a person is presumed to be notable if she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This person has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Haaretz, Maariv etc. Marokwitz (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable firsts are sufficient for inclusion. We have many of them, a number have been taken to AfD and kept on the basis of being a notable first. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Medranda[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was denied by User:Elisfkc for the following reason: "Proposed deletion removed as he now is on loan to 1st division US MLS team, Sporting KC". However, that is not a good enough reason to remove the PROD. Medranda still needs to actually play in MLS before he becomes notable, which he has not done yet, and he clearly does not pass GNG. So the reason deletion still stands. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case of WP:TOOSOON, if he plays then the article can be recreated. Fenix down (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per nominator's own withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IE: "Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. Article is no unsourced BLP any more." The Banner talk 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Patnaik[edit]

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

unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE... and fix per numerous available sources found through an easy and brief search.[1] The article certainly has assertions of notability, and a point of fact is that earlier versions DID have sources, unfortunately removed by an anon IP in newbie efforts last year to expand the article. Some have now been returned. Let's fix this up and not delete a demonstrably notable topic that simply needs editorial attention. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable personality, popular also. Enough references from reliable sources available. Award winning personality. Article has good scope for improvement also.
Anish Viswa 04:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – A prominent composer in Telugu cinema. Has won the "Filmfare Best Music director" for three consecutive years. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created in November 2006 and as noted above did contain sources at one time. I think the nominator was concerned about WP:BLP in that the version he nominated was without sources (now corrected). However, in considering the number of decent sources available though a search, notability is without doubt and the thing could even be brought to GA status with a little attention. I would politely point out that even though it often results in improvements, AFD is not intended to be used to force cleanup. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 08:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is nice to see how the article is improved, as I had the idea that it was another case of puffery and selfpromo, impossible to rescue. That it turns out otherwise is a pleasant surprise. Rescuing, not to mention cleaning up, was in my opinion not possible, so don't accuse me of forcing a clean up. Assume good faith, please. The Banner talk 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for revisting, and I am happy that that a rescue was a pleasant surprise. I do assume good faith as WP:BEFORE is only a suggestion and not a pre-nomination mandate. Please do not take my pointing to WP:NOTCLEANUP as a personal affront, as I have extensive experience dealing with improvable articles sent to AFD that simply needed a little love. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. Article is no unsourced BLP any more. The Banner talk 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted elsewhere — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One and Only"[edit]

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

There already is an article about this song: One and Only (Adele song), redirected to the album page. Mayast (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all were speedy deleted by User:Qwyrxian per CSD G3, with the closing comment "Blatant hoax." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven on Seventh Street[edit]

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

This is an article on a fictitious show. See WP:MADEUP Pleasehelp (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per G3; tagged as such. Hoax articles; this Gsearch says it all. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added two more articles to the nomination due to this Gsearch. I am also going to WP:AIV to suggest a block of the creator because it is clear that s/he is only here to create hoax articles. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete endorsed Yet another Disney Channel hoax show. Suggesting that a checkuser be done for Blesseddude (talk · contribs) as possibly related to KuhnstylePro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has specialized as of late in these false Disney Channel articles via socks, though there are many kid's show vandals who love to hoax us like this. Nate • (chatter) 05:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex - Online[edit]

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

This recently created article just duplicates information found at Ghost in the Shell#Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex#Video games. It also previously featured a reference that pointed to a link that did not actually exist, representing the statement now identified with a {{fact}} tag. There are not enough references and there is not enough information to support a separate article at this time. This needs to be turned into a redirect, preferrably to the Stand Alone Complex page. —Ryulong (琉竜) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect the article then.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did and it was reverted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unneeded forking. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost_in_the_Shell#Stand_Alone_Complex. Merge at this point is possible but not preferred, because of WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh6 6 6 03:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think the actual Stand Alone Complex page is better. We should not have the information in so many places.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. So confusing already... Ansh6 6 6 06:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken:Unlimited Cruise 2nd[edit]

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

Unsourced crystal bol The Banner talk 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and in line with the WP:PROD already proposed once: No content other than lists, but doesn't meet MOS:LIST; appears (hard to tell, again, no content) to refer to something a year or three in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Cavarrone 18:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What in the world is this... Ansh6 6 6 03:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete SPAM {{db-spam}}, CONTEXT {{db-context}}, NOTABILITY {{db-event}} -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- db-nonsense? I have reverted your addition of three speedy deletion requests. The Banner talk 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has no mention of notability, it does not reveal its context, and it is promotional, therefore it qualifies under all three deletion criteria. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, this is why it doesn't. For one, if there was "no context", how could it be "promotional"? A1 doesn't apply here since the article isn't short by any means and you can tell what it's about from the sections, category, etc. It doesn't look promotional at all, and definitely not G11-able - it's more documenting every single thing to do with the anime series than explicitly or even implicitly trying to sell it. A7 comes the closest but doesn't apply because this doesn't fit under the categories ("individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events"). Ansh6 6 6 06:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - From my reading of the article: I couldn't tell it was about an anime series, there was nothing there showing that except the category, which could easily be spurious (how can it be an anime series if there are playable characters?). It was promoting some event in 2014, and the author's name was attached as one of the organizers (Vhenjun Valencia and Vhenjun410 (talk · contribs)), but just what it was, was not explained, so no context. And there is definitely nothing about notability in it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would second a context-based speedy. Not sure about spam or notability, though. There's really not enough context (!) for me to tell. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That doesn't even make sense...this isn't even close to a speedy. Ansh6 6 6 01:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment either this article gets rewritten or it should get deleted, because article is just a list... BrandonWu (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dholiya (village)[edit]

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

An editor has been unable to verify the existence of this village and has removed the co-ordinates on that basis. So I am proposing it for deletion by paraphrasing the question they left in their edit summary; "Does this village exist?" (see this diff) Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search for Dholiya Nagaur brings up hits at Google Maps and OneFiveNine.com. The village apparently exists. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence found by Gene93k and the fact that populated places are always notable per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. However, the blatant spam (trying to boost search ratings?) in the article needs to be trimmed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious trimming performed. Overtrimmed? You be the judge. Happy to Withdraw per gazzeteer remit now we know it exists! Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator requests withdrawl after article was improved. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majhoi[edit]

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

no major content, locations is not notable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per norm on populated places. I have added a reference to the article relating to a visit by the country's prime minister to the village in 2012. This was found via Google: see WP:BEFORE. The text of the article (by a new editor, whose first contribution has been brought straight to AfD, which can be rather discouraging) is in clear need of clean-up, but that is a matter for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles on villages are usually kept per WP:NPLACE if discussed in any reliable source. A Google Books search for "Majhoi, Kashmir" yields several hits, including this 1879 book. There may be more than one village called Majhoi. Please note that Wikipedia's core principles, called the Five Pillars, says that Wikipedia incorporates features of a gazetteer which includes precisely this type of information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, after the latest revision, I want to withdraw the AFd...-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Majhoi-ity rules. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Future Physicians and Medical Scientists[edit]

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

This is an unreliably-sourced article about what appears to be a non-notable organization. Other than its own Web site, the only result on Google News was http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/21484/ . —rybec 15:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough third-party reliable sources. Graham87 23:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'll note that CNN iReport, and Yahoo Voices are not reliable sources. Vatalyst might be, and I can't tell with the California Business Journal, but they are marginal sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Woodward[edit]

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

The first AfD was a wash (violation of topic ban) but that doesn't mean the article should stay. Yogesh Khandke argued at the AfD that being a judge for the British Haiku Society was a reason to call him notable; I disagree (it's a small club). He also suggested that this proves the person's importance in the Haiku scene, but I don't see it. Now, the review he founded is a zine with zero notability, receiving no coverage besides on the website of the associated MET Press (Modern English Tanka). MET Press also published Woodward's book--through Lulu.com. (And this is not a relevant review or award.) In other words, doesn't pass the GNG, doesn't pass the AUTHOR or PROF guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted on User:Semimaru kajin, the article was more of an experiment than anything else. We'll see if the Wikipedia community consider the article worthy of keeping. I have no intention of arguing for or against it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read this about the "British Haiku Society" According to Anthony Thwaite, writing in "The Penguin book of Japanese verse", 'The interest in haiku that had previously been smouldering flared into life in 1990 with the foundationof the British Haiku Society'[2] So despite the 125 pound reward of the prize for which Woodward was the judge, I hold the opinion that the judgeship gives Woodward notability. I would like reactions to this clarification before voting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing you to WP:NOTINHERITED would seem like a good response if you said "Anthony Thwaite once co-authored a book with Woodward", but "Anthony Thwaite once wrote a book that briefly mentioned a society that once let Woodward be one of the judges in their competition" is a couple of steps behind even that... (Also, Woodward can't inherit his notability from an organization that itself doesn't even have a stand-alone article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that society was notable, and/or if Woodward's involvement with it had been properly covered, in-depth, then maybe. As it is, we have a passing mention of the society and his judgeship--there is no way in which that put together makes him pass the GNG guidelines, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very marginal notability by Wikipedia standards (WP:AUTHOR) and the article may have been created in violation of WP:POINT. I did find one interview with Woodward in Simply Haiku [3] (which is probably a somewhat independent and mildly academic, but very niche venue) and another [4] presumably appeared in Haibun Today, but that latter one is in a publication founded and edited by Woodward. Additionally, Patricia Prime who interviewed Woodward in Simply Haiku is also listed as a reviews editor for Haibun Today [5], so it's hard to say there's much independence there as required by WP:GNG. Finally, The Monserat Review, which gave an award to one of Woodward's books, appears more independent, but is still a pretty obscure venue (albeit with some Goggle Books hits.) I suppose the fact that Grace Cavalieri is the editor granting those awards in the The Monserat Review adds a bit more credibility, but it still seems a marginal award, especially because there are seven books in that "Best Books for Winter Reading, 2008" list in the anthologies section alone. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks. When you know the reason I created the page was not POINT but that I legitimately wanted to see if the article could survive, it's a personal attack to pretend that I was violating POINT. Please, please, PLEASE grow the fuck up and leave me alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there were questions at the original (related) AFD as to whether Woodward was a reliable source because of the insular/circular nature of publishing in this particular niche genre (as Drmies has articulated). I don't think those concerns have been sufficiently allayed to now think many of those same sources are independent enough to be considered acceptable for conferring notability. Stalwart111 11:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I actually remembered the original AfD when I created the article, of course, particularly where you (I think it was you) pointed out that some of the sources being cited by TN might be independent/reliable sources for the book/author, even if not the concept. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to trawl back and look but I'm pretty sure you're right and I'm pretty sure that part was before the subsequent part when we realised exactly how closely related most of those sources really were. No harm in testing the theory, I suppose, but I don't think there's enough to sustain the article. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just realized that, unless I cast a clear "delete" !vote, my above response to SNUHRN might theoretically be taken as a "keep". I am of course not in favour of keeping this or any other article that confers some kind of "notability" on online poets/quack-scholars. I was actually just avoiding !voting so as to keep my original experiment viable, but that's no longer necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Materials Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article that clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, despite having 15 references. 1 and 3 are stock ticker pages with links to press releases. 2 is self-authored SEC filing. 4 is brief mention in local paper of move out-of-town. 5 is sourced from press release. 6-14 do not mention subject of article at all. 15 is press release from PR firm that gives "awards" to its clients. Maybe some of this material could be included in the quantum dot article. Google News search turns up some more press releases. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, just to be open, I (the original article creator) do have a previously disclosed COI in this case. In terms of the potential failure of WP:CORPDEPTH, I think the article does have sufficient notability. Source 4 is admittedly brief, but I don't think I'd call it trivial coverage - but I may be wrong there. Source 5 may be sourced partially from a press release, but clearly goes beyond the content of any press release, suggesting independent research and fact-checking from the cite, so I would have thought that was suitable. For 15, Frost & Sullivan is a market research company, not a PR firm, so the above objection doesn't seem to stand. I feel that some of the sources from 6-14 contribute to notability, demonstrating as they do the notability of the product and method, and QMC is the only company that uses that method to bulk produce tetrapod quantum dots. There is also further coverage not currently included in the article itself, such as this IB Times piece on the Hague Corporation, which is what QMC was previously called: http://www.ibtimes.com/hague-corp-hgueob-one-watch-231527. That's obviously significant and independent coverage, I think. I've also found that QMC are covered in a good deal of market research reports on the quantum dot industry. Since these are surely both independent & reliable, it seems that they should have some impact. Here's a representative sample: http://wintergreenresearch.com/reports/QuantumDot.htm, http://www.reportlinker.com/p01121029-summary/Global-Quantum-Dots-Market.html, http://www.reportlinker.com/p0865190-summary/Quantum-Dots-QD-Market-Global-Forecast-Analysis.html, https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/profile_excerpt/Quantum_Materials_Corporation, http://www.futuremarketsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221&Itemid=92. Being a publicly traded company, there are also a fair few articles around on the company's stocks & shares, if you dig deep enough in Google, such as: http://www.aimhighprofits.com/qtmm-quantum-materials-exits-stage-left-at-the-open-23591, http://articles.thehotpennystocks.com/quantum-materials-corp-pinkqtmms-first-appearance-on-the-promotional-scene/, http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/265221-world-market-media/78095-quantum-materials-corporation-otcbb-qtmm-9m-marketcap-26. Also worth noting that the reason so many of the article's original sources are purely discussing the science is because a big part of what makes QMC notable/important is that they are the only company currently capable of manufacturing these tetrapod quantum dots in quality & quantity. I also hope to include some of this info into the quantum dots article, and a couple of other relevant ones, but there still seems to me to be sufficient notability for this company article. As CORPDEPTH notes, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" - there is no single very strong source (of the ilk of an in-depth article in a major newspaper), but there are several independent, in-depth sources, especially counting the financial discussions, the IB Times piece, and the numerous market research reports. Obviously these all show notability even though they aren't included in the article itself, but perhaps some could be included as sources if people think that would improve the article. Dompreston (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that I've taken another look at the article and made some edits to remove any language that might have seemed even slightly promotional - if there are any other instances that seem anything other than neutral, please say so here so that the page can be improved. I've also added the above mentioned International Business Times article, which backs up a claim in the article, and obviously demonstrates notability. I'd also like to reiterate the significance of the aforementioned market research reports - these are independently researched documents published by respected organizations that have seen QMC as notable enough to warrant inclusion in the reports, and there are more than 15 of them out there. If that doesn't show notability, I don't know what does. Dompreston (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One final quick note, I don't want to take over this AfD: I've made further edits to the page, that I hope improve the content and remove anything objectionable. Please note that these changes make the source numbers used above to refer to sources out of date, for those trying to follow the discussion - some of these sources have been renumbered, and several are no longer used at all. I've also found a further two market research reports that I don't think have been mentioned yet: http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/advanced-materials/graphene-applications-markets-avm075a.html and http://www.frost.com/sublib/display-report.do?searchQuery=%22quantum+materials+corporation%22&ctxixpLink=FcmCtx1&ctxixpLabel=FcmCtx2&id=D776-00-0A-00-00&bdata=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mcm9zdC5jb20vc3JjaC9jYXRhbG9nLXNlYXJjaC5kbz9wYWdlU2l6ZT0xMiZxdWVyeVRleHQ9JTIycXVhbnR1bSttYXRlcmlhbHMrY29ycG9yYXRpb24lMjImeD0yMSZ5PTZAfkBTZWFyY2ggUmVzdWx0c0B%2BQDEzNzY1NzYxODUwMTE%3D. Again, these are independently written & researched publications by researchers and companies that have deemed QMC notable enough for inclusion, as required by the Wiki notability guidelines. Dompreston (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a commercial ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 14:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability. Traded over the counter and shockingly little news coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the article has been edited a bit, I should state my view that it still is a clear fail of WP:CORPDEPTH. This nomination is not about neutrality, it's about notability, or in this case lack of notability according to the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Wynn[edit]

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

No indication that this individual meets notability requirements. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typically college offensive linemen do not generate enough press to pass WP:GNG. Although I'm seeing a lot of coverage, it all appears to be from "NJ.com" which I'm not convinced is the type of publication we're seeking. Since the subject has not played professionally (and with no indication that he ever will or even might) I don't see any guideline or policy to pass Notability at this time. Open to discussion if anyone has other information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. At least some of those NJ.com stories are from The Star-Ledger, which is a significant newspaper by any standard. Nevertheless, I also haven't found substantial coverage of this player of the sort that would pass our usual GNG standards for college players who haven't played in NFL regular season games. Wynn played for Tampa Bay in the 2012 preseason, then spent the year on IR, and was cut in June 2013[6]; I didn't find any evidence that he's currently on a roster somewhere else. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Main Desi[edit]

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

Upcoming film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NFF, deproded with no explanation BOVINEBOY2008 14:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and being TOO SOON for an article. Allow back once this enters principle filmng and only if we can support this in reliable sources. I'd be fine if the creator asked it to be userfied while he works on it, but it has no place in article space at this time. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - WP:TOOSOON Fbryce (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathrose Parathuvayalil[edit]

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

Not Notable Drajay1976 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable with references. SefBau : msg 13:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1, reference 2, Reference 3 are self published. They cannot be used to assess notablity.
Ref 4 only mentions that Trivandrum Govt. Ayurveda Medical College is affiliated to the Kerala University. This does not mention the subject of the article at all. This does not support the claim in the article, but only proves the existance of the college.
Refernce 5 is self published as well. This cannot be used to assess notablity.
Ref 6 is an article published in an unreliable online magazine where you can send an article about your organization and it gets published. Ref 7 is the photograph of the subject of the article getting an award. Ref 8 is a self published press release (the link is dead). Ref 9 is self published press release. Ref 10 is another self published press release. Ref 11 is another self published press release (link is now dead). Ref 12 is another press release given by respublica consulting. Ref 13 is another press release given by the same firm. So is Ref 14. Ref 15 is a dead link.
All the claims under the section "achievements" are unreferenced except the last one. The last achievement is that his institution can train three students because he is a recognized teacher (guru) (ref 16) I dont think this confers any notablity. Only his name is mentioned in the reference, which is not significant. The other references (ref 17, ref 18, ref 19, ref 20) does not mention the subject of the article at all. These references are about the autonomous institution which oversees the course.
Out of the 20 sited sources, only two (Ref 7 & 16) is independant. They do not contain any significant mention of the subject of the article. Ref 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 are self published. Refereces 17, 18, 19 & 20 do not mention the subject at all. The two independent references do not contain the necessary significant coverage necessary to prove WP:GNG or WP:BASIC
The personal details about the individual are all original research and are not verifiable.
The article appears to be manufactured self publicity material. The subject is NOT notable enough for a stand alone article. --Drajay1976 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're right. Most references are selfpublished. I suggest for deletion. SefBau : msg 13:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Praveen:talk 08:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cozmo (producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article, yet there is some new information with a album release in 2013. Worthy of a second look, instead of a speedy deletion. Procedural nomination (no vote) Nabla (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 10:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and spammy. I speedied this, but was asked to restore so that the AfD could continue. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somebody added a bunch of "references" to the article, but they aren't actually references. I can find no signficant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zabeel Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Closed and restarted due to canvassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Couldn't find any evidence that this mall has ever been build! Announcements from about 2004 on are there: Will be ..... Nothing more, wouldn't be the first investment project that has been stopped in Dubai since the financial crisis hit them.NYT Google maps shows on the place (south of Al Wasl Sports Club) plain brown sand [Mall loc: Al Wasl Sports Club, Dubai - United Arab Emirates]. Forum --Ben Ben (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ben Ben. GregJackP Boomer! 00:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride (skyscraper)[edit]

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

Relies on forum postings for primary references. unable to establish via google searches whether this refers to the "City Pride" building (which still only has a handful of mentions) or something else. It seems like having an article for a construction project that is still in the planning stages is somewhat ill-advised unless there are substantial RS about it. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is linked from the List of tallest buildings and structures in London, providing more information than can be supplied on that page. Not all list entries have their own pages, but this building is of greater than average interest for being the tallest residential building approved for construction in London. It has been viewed around 1200 times in the last 30 days. Paravane (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references there include one news site of unknown reliability, and a posting on the skyscrapercity online forum. that forum is actually what prompted me to examine the article in the first place, since it is used frequently as though it were RS for tall buildings, or construction projects, despite it being a forum site, which in most cases precludes its use as RS.

Additionally, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that we need to delineate a set of guidelines for notability of large construction projects; treating them as though they were buildings creates a lot of difficulty that i think could be avoided. But that's another discussion for another noticeboard or talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional references added. Compare the articles for 432 Park Avenue in New York, or 29 South LaSalle in Chicago. Paravane (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references added are primary sources. I would argue that the 432 Park Avenue article is at least notable because it has a WSJ article about it, while the 29 South LaSalle, as currently composed, is not. Primary sources do not, to me, connnote notability in and of themselves, though that may be a larger policy argument than can be made here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added BBC article. Paravane (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to CTBUH and Emporis. I can think of many improvements to wording and to remove the skyscrapercity reference, but should I wait until sfter this AfD is completed, or go ahead now? Astronaut (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that both CTBUH and Emporis, supposedly reliable sources, quote the AOD height of the building, without specifying it to be AOD - leading to the mistaken assumption that the figure of 233m, previously placed on this page after careful research, is wrong. A reliable source should make it clear, in this context, whether figures are AGL or AOD. It is not necessarily helpful to create black-and-white categories of reliable and unreliable sources, and to depend on the former and dismiss the latter. Paravane (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Once it is built, if that ever happens, it will be relatively easy to find sources that give its height. At the moment it is still on paper, so its height is a fraction of a millimetre. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. GregJackP Boomer! 00:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fora building of this size, even the planning can be notable, as shown by the references , demonstrating it has been widely reported. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:CRYSTAL. When (if) it is built, it will probably be notable, but at the moment it seems merely to be some plans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zabeel Mall[edit]

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

No significant coverage on google, aside from wikipedia page and a database listing. No indication of notability. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found reliable sources about Zabeel Mall, you can find it here : [7], [8], [9], [10]. Zabeel Mall is quite notable as the total gross floor area of mall is 1.6 million square foot, and its quite notable, it is one of the biggest shopping mall in Dubai, and currently it is 3rd biggest mall in Dubai in terms of gross floor area making this mall notable, so the question of non-notability doesn't exist.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Zabeel mall is quite notable, and i have found a number of reliable sources.Blog123 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reason same as above, reliable sources exist about Zabeel Mall. الله أكبرMohammad Adil

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Nation (Australia). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Banister[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Briefly a candidate for political office, known only for one event, the gaffes that led to her not being a candidate any more. Shirt58 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while this article itself may be deleted or made a redirect, any Wikipedia content is subject to its Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, including this deletion discussion. Please focus on the article, not the person.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and WP:POLITICIAN: "being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability". WWGB (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, she has hit the international media, and without meaning to. But if it has any lasting significance it will be in the context of the present election and the success or otherwise of her party's campaign, and she herself will be left in obscurity. According to the BBC, her political career lasted 48 hours, and certainly does not satisfy the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. If we were to have BLPs on every candidate who made a fool of themselves when standing..... --AJHingston (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and guidelines. But boy, did I laugh. Yintan 11:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

save I fully understand the emotion to delete. Even I sort of want it gone. However, I came to Wikipedia today just to learn about this person and their educational background. Wikipedia snoops can look at my internet footprint and see that I went from the BBC article on her to here. The main reason I support save is that it meets the criteria for saving. See WP:Politician being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". It doesn't bar people not yetelected. There is significant coverage in news websites in many countries, all of which are independent of the person. I have legal training and know how to understand regulations. It could be that the authors of the regulations intended something else but they wrote regulations which this article passes. I do admit it needs beefing up. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (as creator) - As this person intentionally became a candidate in a national election, gave national interviews, this was not a case of WP:BLP1E as it is clearly meant for "low profile" individuals. WP:BLP1E was created for "low profile" people who through no fault of their own found themselves in the news ("Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot"). But as this person quickly withdrew from the public almost as fast as she threw herself into the limelight, I consider this a borderline case. --Oakshade (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Nation (Australia), which has a section about the incident. Although we create articles for those in elected office, that doesn't usually extend to candidates, and a 48-hour candidature by someone who is otherwise non-notable hardly meets the general notability guidelines. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this in the timeline of Australian federal election, 2013. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say someone's created a Stephanie Bannister redirect to One Nation (Australia). Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical election season titillation. Yes, it was all very embarrassing, which led to some widespread coverage, but this is exactly what WP:1E is for. If she'd ever done anything apart from make a dill of herself on national television, well, then, maybe there'd be something to consider. As an aside, I consider her inclusion in both the election page and the One Nation page to be a case of WP:UNDUE. Frickeg (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a wholly needless article, as its only focus is Banister's disastrous interview that showed her for the ignoramus that she is, and the incident is already covered in the One Nation (Australia) article (which doesn't even link to this one). I don't see how this article could ever be expanded, as Ms. Banister's political career is surely off to hell in a handbasket now. We'll never hear from her again (good job, too). Kelisi (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E/WP:POLITICIAN, and all the important information is already mentioned in the relevant articles. Robofish (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into One Nation (Australia). The events surrounding her candidacy are clearly notable as they've attracted national and international news coverage. However, there's not much else to support a standalone article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:SNOW. Stalwart111 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Nation (Australia)#2013 controversy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:BLP1E. Making fun of her is a bit like kicking a puppy, really. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber science[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be a fairly non-notable term. There are only two references to its existence, the first being an essay which is near-impossible to track down, and the other is an arbitrary article in the Los Angeles Times. No real evidence of this term being used beyond that. I am told that the term was only coined for use within this essay itself. — Richard BB 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked for other sources yet, but just FYI to other commenters, here's a quote from the essay used to source the article. The article is about plausible and implausible inventions in science fiction, and after a couple of pages Spinrad says "To give an example of what I'm herein calling 'Rubber Science' as opposed to straightforward pseudoscientific doubletalk, let us consider the grandaddy of them all, FTL, hyperspace, overdrive, spaceships exceeding the speed of light." Spinrad is using "rubber science" to refer to fake scientific explanations that are done well enough to sound plausible to a reader, as opposed to "pseudoscientific doubletalk", which a reader regards as nonsense. For example, later in the essay, he says "in its highest form, the Rubber Science in science fiction can, on occasion, actually contribute to the dialectic of scientific evolutionl it can come very close, sometimes, to being the real thing". The essay clearly is a good source for the term; the question is whether the term has become notable since the essay, which seems to have been where the term was coined. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to science in science fiction. The concept itself seems to be notable enough, although I have never heard this expression before. I was looking for another article on the concept, either within sci-fi or more generally in fiction, to propose a merger. The closest I could find was suspension of disbelief, but that seemed to broad to merge in this little article. Until Mike Christie sugested the right place to merge. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Then a redirect to Natural rubber#Chemical makeup or something similar wouldn't be out of order. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a stab at a referenced usage section; looks like a borderline case per WP:NEO's policy of sources that discuss rather than merely using the term. Would favor a merge/redirect to the Hard science fiction#Scientific rigor subsection over deletion. --Muchness (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, on reflection I'm favoring inclusion for this borderline case, without prejudice to further merge/rename discussion on the article's talk page. --Muchness (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got notable usages of the word in the now. Google news search has some additional results to sort through. The LA Times has an article about the subject titled Rubber Science, Real Science and Science Fiction [11]. So its a real thing, and it gets coverage. Dream Focus 13:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either Rename to imaginary science, or (preferably) merge to science in science fiction. There are hundreds of sources covering the topic of plausibility in science fiction, which is essentially what this article is about -- the topic itself is clearly notable, but "rubber science" is not the most common name for the topic. The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF uses "imaginary science", and that's a good source to start with. However, the whole topic is really a subtopic of "science in sf", so I think a merge is the best choice for now -- if that article gets too large (not an immediate threat) then it can be split out as "imaginary science". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sources. Acceptable to have a phrase or idiom-specific article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources above and in the article. Seems a notable ~~idiom~~ concept. Disclaimer: I originally removed the PROD from the article. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not idioms. I'm still voting for a merge to Science in science fiction. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like saying "WP articles are supposed to be about topics, not fruits". Idioms (like fruits) are a legitimate topic (pardon the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but when it is a lot of stuff, it kinda shows consensus). Concepts are even more of a legitimate encyclopedic topic. If anything, I was wrong calling it an idiom: the article is about a notable concept, with an idiomatic name. I fixed my !vote accordingly. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, idioms can be covered, if there is discussion of the idiom itself, as opposed to the topic. The significant coverage I'm aware of isn't about the term "rubber science", as far as I can tell; it's about the concept of imaginary science, which is also known as rubber science. Can you say which sources you see that support the separation of "rubber science" from "science in science fiction"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times source, for example: " "The trap is that by science fiction convention there are no indications or clues as to which science in the story is 'straight stuff' and which is 'rubber science': speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention. . . .". It refers to a specific subset of science in science fiction: something what looks like real science, but isn't. Real science and explicit science laws violations appear in sci-fi as well, so it seems to me rubber science is very clearly defined in between. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there's more than one kind of science in science fiction -- the LA Times refers to real science and rubber science; and you're adding "explicit science laws violations". I'd agree with that, so I think where we disagree is that science in science fiction should be about both the latter two in your list. It surely has to include rubber science or it wouldn't be covering its topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Science in science fiction should be a generic article on how science (real, realistic or downright bizarre) is depicted in science fiction. Agree it should include this topic. A merge is not a bad idea, in this respect, but as far as it is notable per se, it can maintain its own article. It depends. While I lean towards keep, I have no incredibly strong feelings against a merge. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be valid based on the sources. Fotaun (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed and restarted due to canvassing Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Central Library[edit]

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

no CSD for buildings. no indication of notability. building is not complete, and entry was tagged as outdated in 2010. no references, no coverage on google news. uses skyscrapercity.com, a forum site, in its list of ELs. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A number of reliable sources are there you can find them here: [12], [13], [14]. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources exist, and the article meets the criteria of notability. Blog123 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources found on net. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of User:Morning277. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiringThing[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable Web site: a Google News search turns up [15] (a press release) and [16] (incidental mention of the name) as the only results besides the company's own site. The site enjoys an Alexa rank of 88,929 in its home country [17]. Several unreliable sources are provided in this Wikipedia article. —rybec 04:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire... er.... delete. Fails GNG. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Dumpty (comics)[edit]

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

sources aren't showing any info about the info added here. SefBau : msg 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This fictional character has received significant coverage in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia and is also discussed in other books about Batman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. I agree with Cullen328 and is he one of the important minor Batman villains even to the part where he has had some media appearances in television and video games. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:31, August 10 2013 (UTC)
Merge/Delete - Topic is not worthy of it's own page. Merge into a Batman villains page or get rid of, but not notable enough for it's own article. No matter the result would recommend if kept in any form a different title. Right now doesn't seem to give a clue as to being part of Batman. Caffeyw (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Relics associated with Jesus#Bodily relics. Consensus based on a lack of significant coverage and an appropriate redirect target. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Umbilical Cord[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely original research and subject is not notable. Google does not show multiple independent reliable sources on the topic. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, with 'keep' votes based on some Google traffic (unreliable sources). -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Relics associated with Jesus. The sources mentioned in the 2006 debate are unreliable blogs at best. I found a few passing mentions in reliable sources, but no significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen. Article doesn't even say that it exists. Ansh6 6 6 05:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now it does say that it exists...that's a big improvement. Anyways, the section mentioned below is a good target. Ansh6 6 6 00:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a relic that is stored in St. John's Lateran. Admittedly there are few references to it but it does exist. If we are going to redirect it as it fails on a technicality (I understand why the technicality is in place) then Redirect to Relics_associated_with_Jesus#Bodily_relics where I've inserted adapted text from the article. JASpencer (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I favor this, and made Holy umbilical cord as a redirect to Relics_associated_with_Jesus#Bodily_relics. —rybec 22:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unimportant, at best little more than dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.123.252 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect (or merge) per others. I have little time for superstition related to relics, but Catholics seem to think them important, making them WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Relics associated with Jesus. That contains as much information as this stand-alone article does. If somebody does find additional reliable information (its provenance, appearance, weight, the receptacle it is in, etc), there may someday be enough information for a separate article, but redirect will do for now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Man (Stevie Wonder song)[edit]

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

The article lacks citations, it's a list explaining the lyrics instead of content that explains why it's notable. It had no fame outside of the album Songs in the Key of Life so anything important about "Black Man" could go in that article instead. Does not follow music article standards for Wikipedia. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a book search reveals a number of hits, including :

I have nuked and paved the article so it now has these three book references and a better chance of being kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I will say I'm glad you've fixed almost every problem with the article, I still suggest at least a merge unless someone can turn this article into something more than a tiny stub. The list that used to be on the article was even helpful if someone could have found citations before adding it. I may add an info box, but even then this article would be way too short not to merge with Songs in the Key of Life. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the excellent work by Ritchie333. There is nothing wrong with a brief, informative article on a notable song, and the article can certainly be expanded based on further research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Give me one good reason this should be a separate article and not part of the Songs in the Key of Life article. It's talking about a song on said album and nothing independent of that. It isn't a single like "Sir Duke", "I Wish", "As", or "Another Star" and it didn't get massive amounts of airplay and a lot of covers and samples despite not being a single like "Pastime Paradise" and "Isn't She Lovely" did. It's just another song on the album and the tiny amount of source-able information only proves this. If anything in this article is importation information it would work better in Songs in the Key of Life. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like several reliable sources for this article have been found since it was nominated for deletion. 114.145.55.37 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Ritchie333 make this stub meet WP:NSONG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown. There is nothing wrong with stubs. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here whether the subject meets WP:GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Jacobs[edit]

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

Article is about a boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX. The only sources are links to his fight record, birth, and marriage. None of those show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come notability for MMA is 'Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization' (3-fights, WOW), whereas for boxing its 'Has fought for or held a world title'. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every project determines their own notability criteria, although WP:GNG applies to all. Also, notice the MMA criteria is for top tier fights, not just fights. You can look up the distinction at the MMA project (see WP:MMATIER). Finally, according to WP:NBOX, boxers don't need to have fought for a world title but they need to have been ranked in the world top 10. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical combination of USA-centric bollocks and Wikipedian Bureaucratic fuckwittery I'm afraid, The Ring (magazine)-American, International Boxing Hall of Fame-American, Boxing Writers Association of America-American, Bellator MMA-American, Invicta Fighting Championships-American, Ultimate Fighting Championship-American. In addition, 'Has appeared in a professional fight on a premium network's pay-per-view or flagship channel (e.g., HBO or Showtime in the United States)'-American, so the Marquess of Queensberry Rules-British, BBC-British not good enough then, but hey, he's mentioned in the The Miami Times and that's an American newspaper, so that should make it okay!!! DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that explains why the only notable MMA fighters are American. Oh wait, there are almost 250 articles on Brazilian MMA fighters and over 60 on English ones, etc. and ignores MMA organizations like Shooto, Pride, Victory Road, and Dream. Since Jacobs was a middleweight, I looked up the latest Ring magazine middleweight ratings. The champion and top 10 contenders represent 9 different countries, and the U.K. is the only country with more 1 name of the list (there are 3). Obviously, these rankings are not US centric. Lest we get too off topic, you're welcome to continue this discussion at my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for stumbling into my trap, and proving my point. Boxers from around the world came to Great Britain to obtain British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC) licences, and from the 1950s their bouts were regularly filmed by the BBC, and broadcast on programmes such as Grandstand and Sportsnight with viewing figures far in excess of the measly 'best-ever' 1.6 million for UFC 100. In addition, these BBC's recordings were also re-broadcast around the world, including, e.g. Australia, meaning boxers with BBBoC licences had global exposure. As Mixed martial arts is a mongrel 'sport', with little history, and has a governing body with the sporting credibility of WWE; the notability bar for MMA participants should be raised to at least the same height as boxers, or as MMA is a minority sport, the notability bar should probably be higher. Why anyone would choose to enforce petty rules (we have a term for this in the United Kingdom; Jobsworth) rather than create articles is beyond me, but more bizarre is that rather than challenging the stupidity of the rules, is to become a self-appointed Police officer who dogmatically enforces these petty rules, it all smacks of Stanford prison experiment, but rather than being randomly assigned the role, the role of officer has been freely chosen, someone should really do some research into this. PS. Nat Jacobs is mentioned in the New York Times, whatever next!!! DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen no evidence to support notability. MMA discussion is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact he took part in a bout where the referee raised the wrong hand is WP:ONEEVENT. Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For someone without a Username, you seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies, don't you 204.126.132.231 ~~Papaursa~~. In the meantime, please enjoy this Pathé News footage of Nat Jacobs challenging for the British middleweight title viewed my millions of cinema goers around the world during March 1966, while I create WP:FUCKWIT just for you. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because 204.126.132.231 ~~Papaursa~~ says not to.127.0.0.1 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 1966 (UTC)[reply]

This is no reason to keep (see arguments to avoid). In addition, Dynamo Degsy, why did you fake the previous signature using the IP of another valid user and making up the date?Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mdtemp ~~Papaursa~~ ~~204.126.132.23~~, 127.0.0.1 is the localhost and as such means this computer, and the date of 21 March 1966 was chosen as this was the date of Nat Jacobs's British middleweight title challenge. You'll also note that I haven't voted, and as such the ongoing consensus has not been affected. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has received press coverage for various reasons, including but not limited to the refereeing controversy. From a quick newspaper search.

The refereeing controversy:

"Jacobs the winner--but only for five minutes", The Irish Times (1921-Current File); Sep 22, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 3

"Blunder of ref's verdict: On this day...1965" BYLINE: Bygones With Jeremy Lewis SECTION: Bygones, Pg.22 LENGTH: 431 words, Nottingham Evening Post, September 22, 1999

He also went missing in 1964 leading to a fight being delayed, which was reported in the press e.g.

"PHONE CALL FROM JACOBS ENDS HUE AND CRY", The Irish Times (1921-Current File); Oct 14, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Irish Times (1859-2011) and The Weekly Irish Times (1876-1958) pg. 4

And substantial coverage of his involvement in the British title fight with Pritchett:

"Jacobs proves game but cannot match Pritchett", Barham, Albert, The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 22, 1966; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 4

Our Boxing Correspondent. "Lively Pritchett Repels Jacobs Challenge." Times [London, England] 22 Mar. 1966: 4. The Times Digital Archive.

"Pritchett keeps his crown - in thirteen", Peter Wilson, Daily Mirror, Tue 22 Mar 1966 Page 27

None of this is very substantial, but together with the Pathe and Boxing News sources it just about meets WP:GNG while avoiding WP:ONEEVENT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of his fight with Pritchett is just routine sports coverage and doesn't show notability (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER).Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Going back to the beginning of this discussion it is not true that "Every (wiki) project determines their own notability criteria, although WP:GNG applies to all.", unless what is meant is that "Every project determines their own notability criteria, which are effective if they have explicit or implied consensus of the entire interested community " . The relationship between the GNG and the special rules varies--which is reasonable because just as we collectively made the GNG at the enWP, we collectively decide how to use it,-- this is not the same as for example, the mandate to respect copyright, where the rule is set for us by the WP community beyond just the English WP , and all we can do is determine the details of how to apply it. For example, the rules for geographic features, will explicitly accept articles beyond what the GNG would accept as an alternative to the GNG. , but they have long standing consensus, Similarly will early olympic athletes. We can may the assumption that sources to meet the actual GNG are findable if we care to, but we needn't go through that often imaginary compromise, since the actual text of WP:N and the GNG says only that it's what usually applies, not what universally applies. Sometimes we have standards limiting the GNG. such as for news events. The extent to which the standards for athletes limits the GNG is a matter for interpretation by the entire interested community, which supersedes anything the wikiproject wants to say about it. The way we determine what the community accepts is in practice at AfD. People in the wikiproject can explain their reasoning, and we usually give it considerable respect, but we do not have to accept it. This should be independent of our personal interests, and consider the appropriate use made of the encyclopedias a whole by the world in general. We exists to be useful, not just for our own satisfaction as a place to write about our own interests. We're not a blog. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:GNG and definitely doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any boxer who fought professionally to a high level is likely to have received significant coverage, and a boxer with a record like this is certainly of encyclopedic interest. Web coverage of a boxer who fought so long ago is likely to be sketchy, but there are still several sources out there, e.g. Manchester Evening News: "was one of Manchester's top boxers in the 60s, fighting for the British title", Pathe News report on his British middleweight title fight with Johnny Pritchett, The Glasgow Herald report on his defeat of Willie Fisher, The Ottawa Herald, small piece from the Schenectady Gazette, The Age article on one of his BBC-filmed fights being shown in Australia, Glasgow Herald article previewing his fight with Ralph Charles, Baltimore Afro-American: "Bookmakers Hate Nat Jacobs", short Evening Times article. There are others behind paywalls. WP:NBOX does not appear to be based on genuine consensus, and is well out of step with guidelines on other sports, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles still seem like routine sports reporting and passing mentions. These are mainly fight results, with an article on the murder of his son and the referee'a mistake thrown in. None of these strike me as significant coverage of him. In addition, WP:NBOX is not "well out of step" if you compare it to the closely related kickboxing and martial arts notability criteria--WP:KICK and WP:MANOTE, respectively. Interested editors can find an ongoing discussion of boxing's notability criteria at WT:BOXING#Notability discussion. Papaursa (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KIckboxing and MMA are not similar to boxing in terms of status, at least in the western world. Boxing has been a mainstream sport for a century and in that respect is more similar to football in terms of general interest and real world significance of sportspeople. Kickboxing and MMA are minority sports with little mainstream interest. For sports that are 'major' sports in a given country we have guidelines that suggest inclusion for people who have played a single match at a high level - looking at the existing boxing guidelines in that respect they are way out of step. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Michig has clearly established notability (in passing, he is also quite correct that boxing is not 'closely related' to kickboxing or MMA and has a far higher stature. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still remains extremely poorly written and although that is not a reason for deletion it makes it hard to see notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If this were a vote, it would be a close thing. However, it is not a vote, but an assessment of the strength of arguments in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is not a close thing. The "delete" arguments are based substantially on Wikipedia policies, particularly lack of reliable sourcing and original research. The "keep" arguments, however, were essentially "this is exactly the sort of information we do well for our readers", "I don't see why not", "this is useful", none of which is based in any Wikipedia policy. Quite simply, content which is not supported by reliable sources, but which is the sort of thing which would be useful if it were supported by reliable sources, does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The only editor in the "keep" camp who made any attempt at all to address the issues of sourcing and original research, namely Bearian, merely stated that "is certainly not original research", without saying why, and said that the issues "could be fixed" by finding beter sources etc. Simply saying that other sources "could be" found, without providing any, is not good enough: we need actual verifiable sources, not just an editor's speculation that there may be some somewhere.

This AfD discussion was previously closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus". I am reverting that closure, not only because I think that was a mistaken conclusion, as in the terms of Wikipedia policy there is a clear consensus, but also because non-admin closure is acceptable only in a limited set of circumstances, and this is not one of them. This is certainly not a "clear keep outcome" or a "speedy keep outcome", nor is it an AfD "with little or no discussion". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange[edit]

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

This complete original research. There are no reliable references. It would be more appropriate on a genealogical database. All info can be summarized with a sentence on John William Friso's page saying he is the ancestor of all monarchs today. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. I'd suggest a merge but there's really nothing to merge here that's not already in the article on John William Friso, Prince of Orange (and the redirect a merge would create would be ludicrous, but that's a side note). The genealogical tables are, as nom asserts, simply not encyclopedic and are a blatant violation of Wikipedia not being a directory. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Since all European royals are related to each other, you can construct any number of interrelationship articles showing how they all connect. DrKiernan (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while WP is not a directory, it is the best-known website that aggregates miscellaneous facts, and this is exactly the sort of information we do well for our readers. It is certainly not original research, although I do see some synthesis. The issues raised could be fixed through the normal editing process of cutting down, finding better sources, creating boxed lists, merging, etc. Given enough time, say a couple of weeks, I could do it myself. I would even be willing to userfy it to a sandbox in my user space, so I could work on it at my leisure. I think I have a good reputation of rescuing horrid articles, but this will take more than a few minutes' editing time, and final exams are bearing down on me. Think of how helpful this would be to students. :-) Please get back to me. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have much of a problem with a merge, but I have no idea what to actually merge. The genealogical tables are explicit violations of WP:NOTDIR, although I absolutely agree they are interesting. Notability is obviously not a concern. So...if I can add to my vote, I'm personally fine with a userfy to Bearian's space if he thinks he can make something workable out of this. I think the article as-is -- meaning the concept itself, not just the content (I tend to agree with the nom's assertion that the non-genealogical-table portion of the article could basically be summarized in 1-3 sentences in the article on Friso) -- is very problematic, but there's useful information in here.

Uh, that was a lot of words to the effect of "look, I'm fine with anything but keeping this topic as-is." :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with it is if this a legitimate topic any scholars other of royal fanatics would even care about. Are there any reliable sources or books that takes this topic seriously? The only place I can see it would be a brief mention on a biography of John William Friso.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, "everyone knows" that the European royals are related to each other, but this article shows how. It's the first google hit for "common royal ancestor", and I was certainly very happy when I found this article. Wikipedia contains plenty of family trees for noteworthy families. A family tree for all european royalty (what this article is) certainly has a place in an encyclopedia. Keep. 77.175.87.201 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about this topic would be found on blogs and genealogical databases edited and created by royal fanatics doing original research. Reliable sources state that royals are related but don't go into details with tables and graphs like we do here. Everybody knows European royals are related but how they do not and most reliable sources, other than a genealogy depository, would not touch about the how because it is impractical and unnecessary. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very significantly, if you googled "common royal ancestor" and ended up at the article on John William Friso, wouldn't you be just as happy? That's the answer you were looking for. Wikipedia is not a place for genealogical tables -- that is a matter of policy -- and the fact that Friso is a common ancestor of all current royals can be (and, in fact, already is) covered in the article on Friso. WP:NOTDIR doesn't exclude all genealogical tables, of course (including brief tables in a broader article is completely fine!), but this article is basically a genealogical table. That's different. I completely support Bearian if he thinks he can modify this into something more appropriate, hence my being fine with a userfy, but as-is this runs rapidly afoul of policy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just notified the creator of this article. Perhaps Andrei Iosifovich would have something useful to add to the discussion. Someone else might want to notify Cladeal832; both of these early contributors to the article are still active editors. For now, I'm leaning toward userify on the basis of WP:NOTDIR but this is not yet a !vote. - tucoxn\^talk 04:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why not. We have Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. Surely it's worth listing the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of all the royal houses in Europe, if only for purposes of DNA tracing in the future.Facts707 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only difference is the former is sourced and well written and not original research because historians have studied on Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. But I don't think anybody except non-reliable sources, royal genealogy fanatics would link John William Friso to the apex of a royal family tree. If the article can be cited to reliable sources discussing John William Friso's descendants specifically then I agree it should be userfy, but if can't what is the point of keeping such an article. I can go back one generation to his father and create a article called Royal descendants of Henry Casimir II, Prince of Nassau-Dietz or even any royal figures in history, but they would all be original research and made by own genealogy digging.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--this is a really useful set of information that anyone studying royal interrelationships should have conveniently accessible.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but update--The page is useful because it ties together information that a reader would otherwise have to search many pages to find. However, it should be updated to give equal credit to his wife, Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel. She too is the "the most recent common ancestor of today's European monarchs." RWB22 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful" is not a very good argument but, more to the point, Wikipedia is not a hosting site for genealogical tables, and this is still original research unless some sources discussing Friso's issue as a group (topic) can be supplied. I'm very worried about the Google search results when trying to pin down the most recent common ancestor of European monarchy -- the results are basically this article plus a few Yahoo! Answers or forums type discussions. This is original research. I'm frankly not even 100% certain the article is correct -- based on what I've seen online the answer to "most recent common ancestor" of European royalty seems to be debatable.

Additionally, the only source in the entire article is a dead link. Just sayin'. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link should work now. You may like to note, that it says nothing about a common ancestor or show the descent of the Luxembourger or Spanish monarchs from Jan Willem, although I can find other sources that show them. DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E). Though suggestions of redirecting to database are more represented, I note concerns that this extension is not necessarily related to database as a concept. Instead, per rybec's suggestion, this will be redirected to Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E) (after all, Redirects are cheap). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.db[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As the article itself states, the .db extension alone is not indicative of any file type; the article is mostly a dictionary definition too. ï¿½ (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Database. Surprisingly this extension is not presently discussed at the target and a merge will fix that omission. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to database. not enough material for a stand-alone article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - anyone interested in .db will likely benefit from the context provided in the Database article. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect There is not enough material here for anything. As the article mentions, .db can be used by anybody for anything. This is unlike .jpeg or .wav where there's a specific format to cover or even .exe where there's a history of the extension. There is no content that could be merged to database. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - very little info, but I have to agree with Anne Delong to redirect it into Database article. could be very useful for many people who dont know this file extension. BrandonWu (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reiterate that redirecting to database is not helpful. Someone researching, for example, a .db file, will not be helped by learning about database systems. E.g. Thumbs.db is a database only in a specific technical sense; the fact that it is a database is useless to nontechnical users. (I do not believe reading about the history of DBMSs or the design of databases would really provide meaningful context.) For experienced technical users (who would already know it stands for "database",) the database article would simply not provide any useful information (as they would be looking for more specific technical information.) I urge other !voters above to reconsider their redirect !votes. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the information from .db into Alphabetical list of file formats (A–E), which may be more suitable redirect. —rybec 16:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cheung[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO Veenix (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. St Anselm (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches on Highbeam, Questia, Google are not turning up reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate the subject's biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If true he is highly prolific as an author. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager: Sounds of the Cosmos[edit]

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

Bootleg release with questionable notability. Has a mere four references, three of which are links to the Google page for the project itself and the other being an About.com article on ambient recordings which doesn't even mention this particular release; more than half of the article is completely unreferenced. A quick Google search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) only shows links to Google and Facebook pages for the release and no links to reliable third-party sources. Viewing the history of the article, the primary contributor to the article appears to be the creator of the work himself, which has been pointed out several times by other users on this article history. Thus, the article seems to be an apparent violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Holiday56 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article is to be deleted, don't reason it on self-promotion. I didn't create the article. Someone else did. While notability is a factor I can't argue with, this article shouldn't fall under self promotion. Hell, an anonymous user revived the article aswell! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notice that you redirected the page at one point, and an anonymous IP revived it. Regardless, lack of notability is still a major concern that I have with the article – glad you understand the notability issue. Cheers, Holiday56 (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. A bootleg from a non notable artist that lacks independent coverage. Where's the notability? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references themselves are questionable. I'm not seeing any GNG throughout the article. There's certainly a lot of info, but unless we're able to get some reliable sources to back up this information, it's going to fail on that policy at minimum. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel Trilogy[edit]

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

Book series with little evidence of notability and written with a clear conflict of interest - sourced largely to blogs and the subject's own website, the only really claim of notability is that it is a #1 Amazon bestseller, a claim not supported by any reliable source (and the amazon store states otherwise) Jac16888 ^Talk 11:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the end, sales mean absolutely nothing. Something can sell insanely well, yet never meet notability guidelines. Given a few minutes, I could probably point you towards about a dozen romance novels that have landed on the NYT bestseller list, yet never received enough coverage to merit an entry. Heck, Laurell K Hamilton is a millionairess that writes urban fantasies that routinely end up on the NYT bestseller lists, yet her latest book (Affliction) doesn't pass notability guidelines. All that selling well means is that the book and/or its author will receive coverage in reliable sources. Now as far as the sources in the article go, only one is even remotely close to being a reliable source, the one from Cambridge News. However that one falls under local coverage, which doesn't really count towards much. The others are either WP:PRIMARY sources or they're from non-notable book review blogs, which are almost always a dime a dozen when it comes to book reviews. It takes an awful lot for a blog to be considered reliable and none of these cut it. It doesn't help that the article has some promotional tinged notes to it, which I think is due to the COI. This just isn't notable enough for its own article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the thing about Amazon bestseller lists is that they're notoriously unreliable because they're relatively easily messed with. Most of the time the claims of bestselling are usually because someone is looking at extremely limited and specific categories (ex: bestseller in Kindle>Fantasy>Books about boys>with a hat) or because the status was achieved through the author giving the book out for free on a certain day. There are also cases where people have gotten a large enough group of people together and specified that they should all purchase X amounts of the ebook on a certain day, which will make it a bestseller. Yes, some authors have actually done that and some have done this on a larger scale with the bigger bestseller lists out there, which is why being on something such as the NYT list means little to nothing on here as far as notability goes. I'm not saying that this author has done this, just explaining for him (and any incoming editors) as to why bestselling status doesn't amount to much on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; There is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Licht[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and so on. Shirt58 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains a reference to a primary source and IMDb, and attempts to create notability by inheritance. There is simply not much out there that could merit inclusion under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Perhaps it is too son in his career. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 775[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are at least a couple of sources with non-trivial discussions of HD 190007,[18][19] plus several other mentions. Article needs plenty of work though. Praemonitus (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Praemonitus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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