Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 December 10 December >

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. Consensus is clear. Secret account 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroacoustic therapy[edit]

Vibroacoustic therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, there does not appear to be much in the way of sources to support an article. Runs afoul of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this seems to be a minor variation on music therapy. It's not particularly clear given the general lack of reliable sources on the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk)
  • Delete. This appears to be something practiced by only a few persons. There appears to be no coverage at all of this practice in print or online media independent of the subject. In my opinion, any purported efficacy of this practice is a non-question for the purposes of this AfD discussion; the focus should be on its notability. I see no notability whatsoever. There does not appear to be any mainstream media attention supporting the practice; there does not even appear to be any mainstream media attention paid to debunking the practice. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - those who suggested delete are confused and have no knowledge of the subject. Enough references available to support Vibroacoustic therapy and it is not a fringe theory.--Cyrinus (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question. Which of the sources you have supplied are you suggesting complies with WP:MEDRS guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possible redirect to music therapy if multiple MEDRS compliant sources can be found. Note, there is confusing use of the term by a small New Age following who claim extraordinary health benefits for VAT. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources do not establish notability. No available MEDRS compliant sources with which to build a sound encyclopedic article; would consider redirect/merge, but available sources do not appear to even merit that much.Yobol (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there might be enough WP:MEDRS sources to merit a short mention on Music Therapy as the little I'm able to see seems to be an outgrowth of music therapy, which is already a somewhat niche modality. I propose that any additions to music Therapy should not be conditional on the outcome of this AFD debate.--Salimfadhley (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that newer sources discussed on article talk page makes Merge/Redirect to Music Therapy now possibly viable. Would support either. Yobol (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think so - Only a subject matter expert can write about the topic... RESEARCH... I have 4 sites...[1][2][3]... I am a spot forex trader, information security professional and a vibroacoustic research therapist... I am not posting about my business... I am posting about vibroacoustic therapy invented by a norwegian - Olav Skille. I am contributing to the topic... It is clearly stated on my user page... I am not hiding under fake handle... -- Cyrinus (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given what's going on here, you also need to read our policies and guidelines regarding off wiki canvasing and meatpuppetry, thanks. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is not canvasing - it is awareness to my fellow vibroacoustic therapists. It is a google plus community similar to wiki. anyone and even my dog can interpret guidelines and policies differently (even lawyers have their own interpretation of what you posted). we need wiki compliance officer Cyrinus (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, Cyrinus, tell us again how WP:COI doesn't apply here. Evidently it does, judging from the content of your website. And your own company's website. By the way, I've been an audio engineer for over 30 years. I know that anyone selling the idea that a specific frequency resonates the same in all versions of the vast physical variety of humanity is selling snake oil. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can be an audio engineer. There are experts and wannabes. From your narrow viewpoint scanidinavian hospitals and clinics were selling snake oil for past 30 years. Those who do nada yoga and binaural are idiots. I saw similar stupid comments when they talked about ultrasound too. In your opinion - universities on the reference list are teaching how to make snake oil uncle... Cyrinus (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Vibroacoustic Therapy References

  • Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training - Marko Punkanen; PhD, Esa Ala-Ruona; PhD Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Jyväskylä, Finland - Marko Punkanen, Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Mesikkäkatu 7, 15610 Lahti, Finland Email: marko@nyanssi.net; Music and Medicine, July 2012; vol. 4, 3: pp. 128-135., first published on May 17, 2012.

Abstract: Click and read the abstract

  • Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.
  • Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.
  • Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.
  • Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library

  • Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.
  • Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7 Maalche Raamat.
  • Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947 (1993)
  • Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum 1983
  • Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc. ISBN 0-918812-72-0 1992
  • Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag ISBN 0-387-18862-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. 1988
  • MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199
  • Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)
  • And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.
  • Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT
  • Neuro Rehabilitation Vol 25, No.4 (2009). King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat
  • Many secondary sources here.
  • Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed
  • King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed
  • van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed
  • Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget
  • Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is VAT a kind of Music Therapy?

The question at stake in an AFD is not whether VAT is fringe, but whether VAT is sufficiently notable subject. The parallel discussion at WP:FTN is concerned with whether the article is reflecting the topic in an appropriate manner.

Having reviewed the sources above, VAT would appear to be a minor variation of Music Therapy. Most of the publications listed above would appear to be music-therapy related:

  • Music and Medicine,Cyrinus
  • Music Therapy. International perspectives
  • MusicMedicine

My layman's summary is that some therapists seem to believe that the musicality of music has therapeutic value whereas other practitioners emphasize the acoustic properties of music.

I could be convinced that this subject was individually notable if we could find a single WP:MEDRS source (preferably more than one source) that identifies VAT as a distinctly separate field of study from music therapy. I was not able to identify one such source from the long-list provided by Cyrinus above.--Salimfadhley (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re Salimfadhley I have added 2 sources that I believe are MEDRS compliant to the article. But of course, I have frequently demonstrated a lack of understanding of MEDRS, so I could be wrong. This topic seems to be notable to me, particularly given that the WHO has weighed in on the matter. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely different issue; what that link is referring to is a legitimate medical procedure that already has an article under vibroacoustic stimulation. Kolbasz (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already established that fetal vibracoustic stimulation is a different and unrelated practice to the subject of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Next time I will be more careful when searching PubMed, which is how I found those reviews. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should probably be deleted as nonnotable, but here's a paper in a well-respected journal that discusses vibroacoustic therapy (at least I think it does given the paper's title and abstract). [4] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paper's abstract clearly identifies the topic as a "type of music therapy intervention", so I suggest a redirect to Music Therapy. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added more search terms, following this message on my talk-page. Thank you for that message Cyrinus.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • VAT is VAS not MT: Vibroacoustic Therapy (VAT) is Vibroacoustic Stimulation (VAS) - also called Physioacoustic Therapy. VAT is not Music Therapy (MT)... Music Therapy is simply a psychologist with a guitar. VAT is VAS where we use pure sound vibration on body. If VAS is not a fringe theory - VAT is not... The definition for VAS under wiki is only discussing a subset of VAS, namely Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation (FVAS). Try also search on Physioacoustic Therapy. I will try to add references for Physioacoustic Therapy. VAT and MT are coined because both use sound - but totally different. Compare VAT with VAS. VAT is VAS... VAS is VAT... not MT --Cyrinus (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: VAT is a kind of sound therapy - not a music therapy. Some Music Therapists use VAT. VAT is VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation). VAS is already accepted by wiki (not a fringe theory). If you delete VAT then delete VAS too. One and the same - but VAT is not Music Therapy (musical notes, scales and beats that feels through ears vs pure sound frequencies feels through the body - in wiki example Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation). Hope that helps... -- Cyrinus (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FDA has listed physioacoustic equipment as a Class One medical device and allows the claims of relief of pain, increase of blood circulation, and relaxation. -- Cyrinus (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more references posted in my talk page... --Cyrinus (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You tell us that "VAT is VAS". If that is so, then we can Delete this article, as we already have one on the subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an article on FVAS not VAS... that is another issue... -- Cyrinus (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "We are missing an article about 'X' so I created one entitled 'Y'" just seems like a non-starter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created both - wiki admins deleted it and kept the wrong definition. Both X and Y... constantly trying to find excuses - fringe theory, spam, now COI... That is why the topic ended up in noticeboard... lol -- Cyrinus (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear Vibroacoustic stimulation was written by myself over 3 years ago. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To put in another way:
Vibroacoustic stimulation is analogous to using a thermometer to take the temperature of someone with an illness that gives them a fever.
Vibroacoustic therapy is analogous to claiming that using a thermometer can cure someone with illness that gives them a fever.
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are totally messed up with your analogy - measurement vs stimulation. nothing relevant to what we are talking - VAS was defined as FVAS (fetal VAS) - which is wrong. another point - if VAS is in compliant with wiki guidelines VAT must be... If VAT is a fringe theory - VAS is a fringe theory... Cyrinus (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not MEDRS compliant. Would consider merge if sources are reliable. Also, there is no point in even discussing vibroacoustic stimulation as it is written in this Wiki. Any search in any database or engine will clearly demonstrate the term VAS is the medical intervention described in that article. Cyrinus repeatedly attempted to wipe that article and replace it with this one. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • VAS is compliant and correct because you wrote it. If VAS is a medical intervention - VAT is too. Case closed. I did not attempt to wipe out - I am adding real definition of VAS because you wrote about Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation as a terminology/definition for VAS. Cyrinus (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEDRS compliant
  • Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed
  • King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed
  • van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed
  • Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget
  • Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Olav Skille's post about VAT on wiki

There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

-- re-posted Cyrinus (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrinus, could you kindly explain why you cut & pasted this block of text into this discussion? Furthermore could you explain why it is that you think this text is relevant to this page's discussion - an attempt to establish whether this topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion into Wikipedia? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • relevant explanation to the article. Cyrinus (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEDRS compliant not promoted - introduced/contributed - no conflicts.
  • Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed
  • King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed
  • van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed
  • Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget
  • Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What happened with assuming good faith? I cannot see that in this discussion... as opposed to ignorant opinions, which are numerous here. What about having open mind and investigating this case more diligently? Scraping the surface in not enough. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are so many references given on the subject and there are no logically correct arguments here which would be against them being proper. There are many "appears" and "seems" as far as the critique of the references goes, but has anyone studied all of those references and can without any doubt discredit each and every one them in the light of WP:MEDRS? (Which are guidelines, by the way, not precise regulations.) If you say that something doesn't apply to WP:MEDRS it should be backed with well-grounded reason. "Seems" is far from it. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be much confusion about the relationship between music therapy (MT) and vibroacoustic therapy (VAT). Maybe a simple analogy will help. Music consists of many different sounds, different frequencies changing in time, variable amplitude and so on... which is processed by brain through ears, we can compare it to the spectrum of radiation generated by Sun and its visible part (light) seen by our eyes... VAT uses vibrations characterized by specific frequencies, often one at a time, specific amplitude which enters body mainly through the skin, so it is a lot like a laser light entering through the skin (as in laser physiotherapy). So, disregarding for a moment difference in delivery ways and simplifying a bit, VAT is to MT as shooting laser beam into the skin is to sunbathing. I hope the distinction is clear. Of course, sunlight and laser light are both of the same nature (like MT and VAT), but do we say they are the same thing?

FYI I have knowledge on VAT, its principles and I use it on myself. I know user Cyrinus, who has been researching VAT for many years and I know for a fact that his intention is to just share the good stuff with people, that's why he's striving to put a proper VAT definition on wikipedia. There are so many false claims over the Internet... Good article about that on wiki could help clear many mistaken notions away. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We always welcome new editors to Wikipedia, but it is odd that your first foray into the project is to defend a colleague and vote in an AfD. Such activity only serves to add to the complaint about off-wiki canvassing. To be honest, such inappropriate behavior taints any discussion and casts doubt on any credibility. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming. I want you to know that I understand it may look suspicious (so much harder for me to contribute), but I don't see why it's odd that I write about that. I assume the discussion is open to new people, right? I wouldn't lift a finger if it wasn't a case which I truly stand by and want to be developed properly. But surely there is no way I can prove it to you. So if being informed about ongoing discussion of topic that is of interest to me and then joining wikipedia community to share my input automatically discredits my opinions... well, then it's really a shame it works that way. But apart from that, the points I presented are rather specific and I think that they deserve decent response. (Please recognize that apart from the last paragraph those points aren't opinions, just logical reasoning (or knowledge), so my credibility (authority) has very little to do with them). Fizalfizal (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant and not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Kolbasz (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete: It is not redundant - NEW CONTENT posted. Compliant with wiki guidelines... Cyrinus (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to do that once in these discussions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete The NEW content is just right. It should stay. Fizalfizal (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to do that once in these discussions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that Cyrinus appears to have unilaterally reverted the tidy-ups made over the last week or so. He's re-inserted many of the non WP:MEDRS sources that originally brought this article to our attention. The 'New Content' is just the same as the 'Old Content' before other Wikipedia editors began questioning his claims. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. See here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Day[edit]

Helsinki Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Helsinki Day has no links in Google News, and no third party results in a web search. Fails to meet WP:GNG. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The day is mentioned in a number of travel books [5], and the GBooks results also include a a snippet from a 1995 New Yorker describing that year's 445th anniversary celebration. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The appropriate search term is Helsinki-päivä and there is clear evidence in Google that it is well known. In any case, an annual event that has been running for over 50 years and attracts over 100,000 people is clearly notable. Whether English news sites cover it is irrelevant. --AJHingston (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Caselli[edit]

Kurt Caselli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded. Seems to be a textbook WP:NOTMEMORIAL, literally everything I found on him was an obit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a bit wary of articles that consist entirely of obituaries; they can end up being written entirely from press releases, which are not reliable sources. I identified a few press releases in this article, but I left them alone, as they seem pretty harmless and aren't promotional. However, this is an award-winning, notable sportsman whose death seems to have triggered a bit more interest in him. That's legitimate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boobytrap aspect is notable as possible link to terrorism as a motive Bachcell (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Credits[edit]

Cherry Credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The referencesseem to me mere announcements that they are selling aparticualr game DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, are you referring to the 'Channelled and Published Games' section? The references are used for the commencement dates of the games - which are normally revealed by the game companies themselves. If the commencement date column is not appropriate maybe we can exclude that out.
The remaining references are from government sources and news sites. --BlasphemyGG (talk) 02:41, 10 December 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) 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Struck "MMOsite" refs as unreliable (WP:VG/RS). Not sure techinasia is reliable—editorial staff doesn't have much editorial experience. Stories go through editors, but I don't know if they're fact checked. I don't know what Boraid is, but it appears promotional in nature. CC has an original article from IGN, but its Gamesindustry articles are not-so-repackaged press releases. The other mentions are peripheral, and the table pertains to the mostly non-notable games and not the company. I'm getting nothing from a regular search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar ♔ 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald J. Del Mauro[edit]

Ronald J. Del Mauro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman and politician with no particularly strong evidence of notability. Content about his career as a health care executive demonstrates his existence, but fails to demonstrate that he belongs in an encyclopedia for it, and content about his single unsuccessful run for a seat in the state legislature fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN (simply being a candidate for office is not sufficient by itself to make a person notable as a politician). Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I would recommend redirecting to an article about the campaign, but he ran 42 years ago so chances of an article are slim. A fine man, I'm sure, but not notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The goal of expanding the coverage of articles about New Jersey politicians is admirable, but this article just doesn't establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 10 December 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. JodyB talk 12:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Carpenter[edit]

Zac Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd place in a narrow category in a state fair is not notabilty. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of that sentence notes that the subject's 2011 entry won 1st place in its category at the Minnesota statewide competition, which, if you're going into the brewing business in Minnesota, is notable. The whole article should make it clear that notability does not rest only on any one award -- it's the result of a set of accomplishments that earned the subject coverage by multiple media sources as a figure of significant interest in his sphere of activity, and meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29, which states: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Cohee (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable professional beer brewer just getting started in the business who has won a couple of non-notable state fair awards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Most of those articles aren't comparable. The New York Times called Peter Ballantine one of the best known brewers in America, and he was a 19th century historical figure, so there are no promotional concerns. Diversey and Jung are also historical figures, now dead. Our standards are much more stringent for biographies of living people. Garrett Oliver has been a professional brewer for 20 years, is described in a book about craft brewing, and has written for Oxford University Press's beer guide. You have a point about Mark R. Johnsen, but no one has nominated that article for deletion, as opposed to this one. This article is based on passing mentions and blog posts. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability of a living person. Do you have a stronger argument? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply2 and continued KEEP - WP:Bio For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. When you state, "We need significant coverage ..." it is, at best, a misnomer. It needs to be notable enough with appropriate sources. I find the stub article Zac Carpenter worthy of notice, interesting and unusual enough to keep. It meets WP:Source by having enough sources to support the stub article. The sources clearly has WP:V has verifiability. The article is a stub article and it has the minimum coverage needed for such a stub article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I am sorry, but significant coverage is not a misnomer, as it is a core part of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Without significant coverage, it is not possible to determine notability, or construct a verifiable biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response2 I am stressing content coverage of this stub article that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article and Article content does not determine notability. While I see that this stub article does not have significant coverage within the article, I find it significant and notable enough with the minimum coverage of content and verifiable sources (more than) for a stub article. It is significant enough for such a stub article. You and I disagree. That is fine. I have not searched for other references or information on this article. I agree it needs work. I still believe, based on the above, that it should be given a chance and kept. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed, several fail WP:RS, The Star Tribune is a blog post, The Stillwater Gazette is a brief quote. Working off WP:ORGIN, I cannot see that this article can provide "verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources". - ManicSpider (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E. The subject hasn't been directly addressed in any depth by the sources (few of which are reliable). There may, however, be scope for an article on Bad Weather Brewing Company, but that would require separate evaluation. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GNG - however, his brewery, Bad Weather Brewing Company, does pass notability guidelines. So perhaps someone can write that article instead. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After checking into this company a little, I found, that per its own web site, "Bad Weather Brewing operates under an alternating proprietorship with Lucid Brewing Company and Badger Hill Brewing Company in Minnetonka, MN. The three companies brew on the same brewhouse equipment then oversee our individual beers through fermentation and packaging." A company sharing one third of the year brewing and operating officially since March 23, 2013. So at best, the subject is part time and too new. I with draw my support. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I'm striking through your keeps above. If that's a misunderstanding, please revert. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:41, 19 December 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Kniel[edit]

Sascha Kniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to a fundamental lack of in-depth, third-party coverage. There are a few claims of notability but they are impossible to verify. For instance, it is claimed that the short story Paul & Josh - Katze zum Mitnehmen was at a some point in the top 5 in Amazon.de's youth book charts but all we can see now is its current ranking of 132.298th. I should note that articles about Sasha Kniel have been deleted five times on de.wiki. [17] Pichpich (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -- GreenC 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. See this edit. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in home video[edit]

2014 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of a listing of soon to be released DVD's at blueray.com and the reflist consists of 22 bare URL's to blueray.com pages where said DVD's are being sold. I nominated for G11 but it was declined. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 9 December 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Tight (Justin Bieber song)[edit]

Hold Tight (Justin Bieber song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be getting by entirely on inherited notability. There's no evidence of it meeting WP:NSONG. While it has been ranked on national charts, NSONG says songs still need to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (i.e., WP:GNG). I found coverage of the song in the right sort of sources, but not of the type that I would call "non-trivial." Most of these amounted to announcements of the release of the song with the music video embedded.

Redirecting to Justin Bieber discography would be fine. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think that in this case redirect would be best. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty light coverage. Those were the sort of sources I was referring to that "amounted to announcements of the release... with the music video embedded." --BDD (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NSONG, that means it may be notable, but it still has to pass GNG. --BDD (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "Composition" section shows many notable outlets discussing and critiquing the song including the Los Angeles Times for one. Here ae some more independent \, reliable and non-promotional sources to add: One from Billboard no less: Justin Bieber's Stuck In Love on 'Hold Tight' Track. Here one from the Toronto Star Justin Bieber's new song ‘Hold Tight’ is probably about something naughty There is also a regional issue of the Guardian newspaper no less talking at length about his specific release: Justin Bieber New Release is Hold Tight Like His Grip on Strippers Assets So quite a coverage over and above what we had on the page werldwayd (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignazio Ciufolini[edit]

Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, easily passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF and any other kind of notability tests. Recipient of several awards, authored several books, and h-index in the mid-20s, with several papers in the 100+ citation counts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment H-index is more of a guideline than a sure-fire test of notability (WP:PROF#Citation metrics). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the Web of Science, which produces less inflated values than Google Scholar (but does not include citations to books). It lists 55 articles, which have been cited more than 1100 times, with an h-index of 18. Three of his articles have been cited over 100 times each. Add to that about 300 citations of his book Gravitation and Inertia (published at Princeton University Press; over 600 citations on Google Scholar) and a PROSE Award and we have a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC. @Prof. Squirrel: As for the h-index, I agree that a low h-index is not a sure-fire test of non-notability, but I have never seen a case where somebody non-notable had a high h-index. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pedantic interpolation. There have been a few cases where people in very large and well cited research groups have been found non-notable because they do not stand out from the crowd. But this is not one such case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You're right, now that you mention it, I remember such a case. The subject had huge citation counts and a large h-index, but always was something like 15th author among 30, never first or last or even second (must have been high-energy physics or something like that). But that's more like the exception on the rule. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a second observation, in HEP, it is rather common for authors to be listed alphabetically, regardless of importance in contribution. Thus a paper by J Aaron, J Corning, J Smith, and J Ziltan could have any of them as the main author(s), and any of them as a "BTW, these people were also involved" addition. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. In such cases we require evidence of independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per clear analyses above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure the awards are major enough, but the citations to his works (and the low numbers of co-authors, including some highly-cited solo works) make a pass of WP:PROF#C1 clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Jay Weissinger[edit]

William Jay Weissinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article demonstrates that the person exists, but fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. Only four refs are provided: a registry of local artists which appears to take applications for listing by anyone located in the region; an online reseller of art that carries the artists' work; and two pages that are self-published by the subject (one page for his art studio, another for his law office). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article about Weissinger will be published in the spring issue of the magazine Sculpture Northwest, which will feature an interview with the artist and ten photographs of his sculptures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gepaulsen (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 December 2013‎
  • Delete - With all respect to the upcoming article, a single article is not going to help this page meet WP:ARTIST. Non-notable at present. -16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomomi Sunaba[edit]

Tomomi Sunaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability standards for both MMA (WP:NMMA) and kickboxing (WP:KICK). Mdtemp (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumi Aoki (fighter)[edit]

Mayumi Aoki (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienna Jenkins[edit]

Adrienna Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so she fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esmehan Baharnaz Sultan[edit]

Esmehan Baharnaz Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There may be some part of WP:N that this person satisfies but I cannot find any part of the guideline that applies specifically to the the wife, mother, or daughter of a Sultan.

Article has no references at all. Unsurprisingly seems to fail WP:GNG but I have no access to 16th century news publications from the Ottoman Empire. I also found no coverage at all in a Google Scholar search or Google Books search. I tried WP:POLITICIAN but it doesn't cover anything about royalty, presumably because royalty would generally satisfy WP:GNG. I don't see anything in the article that would suggest that the subject satisfies WP:BIO.

I do not feel that being the wife, daughter, or mother of a Sultan infers notability but maybe it should. Without even a single reference, I can't support a WP:IAR argument to keep this article.

I PROD'd the article to try and get the author, Retrieverlove, to add some references but they removed the PROD with no explanation. This user has created many similar articles with no references for people whose sole claim of importance seems to be that they were the wife/mother/daughter/concubine or a seemingly notable person. Fülane Hatun would be another prime example but here is a list of all articles they have created. OlYeller21Talktome 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete No sources and no proof of notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She wasn't even the wife, daughter or mother of a sultan (personally I would have said that these relationships would generally confer notability). She was the granddaughter, niece and daughter-in-law of a sultan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Necrothesp. I'll probably be looking to AfD more article from this author unless there's some precedent that being some close relative to a sultan infers notability. Do you know if there's any such precedent? OlYeller21Talktome 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to my knowledge, although I suspect many (myself included) would vote to keep parents, siblings, spouses and children of sovereigns, although not necessarily those with a more distant relationship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you. For historical entities like this, I don't see a reason to delete when someone has already done the work. The only reason I support deletion at this point is that there isn't a single reference used to backup the claims made in the article. I don't usually like using WP:IAR when it comes to notability but I have a hard time believing that an article like this is hurting anything, even considering WP:LOSE. OlYeller21Talktome 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of links to anyone significant other than a non-succeeding child of a sultan suggests to me she was NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After a search, can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:21, 17 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair (band)[edit]

Armchair (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band: no third-party coverage Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Thai-language sources, their album releases & movements have been covered by national newspapers Daily News, Khao Sod, Kom Chad Luek, Khao Sod, and appeared on Channel 3's morning news show. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I hadn't noticed those. But I'm keeping the nomination for now, since the article itself currently lacks citations. If someone were to add third-party citations, I'll withdraw the nomination. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't require that the sources be cited in the article, only that they can be shown to exist.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."—See above links.
2. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."—Their single Khun Kep Khwam Lap Dai Mai topped 98.5 Good FM's chart for the week of 25 December 2010.[18]
5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels."—Have released five albums with Universal Music (Thailand), Sony Music (Thailand) and Smallroom, one of Thailand's better-known Indie labels.
12. "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."—See above Channel 3 link.
--Paul_012 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage listed above.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Although I'm not sure how "official" the Thai chart mentioned is, the band has been covered in enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Chief Mkuja[edit]

Big Chief Mkuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article look like somthing that someone wrote to promote their own band and the sources show nothing to prove the subjects notibily.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-party coverage —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passes no 1 and no 12 of the music notability criterion.Therefor should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.247.90 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 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,  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

having gained national radio in the UK (BBC Radio 6) - in conjunction with having musicians already cited within Wikipedia as being worthy of noteworthy inclusion - I can see no valid reason to delete this entry. I also rather disagree with a comment made previously in this debate that the entry has been made to promote the band - there are far better areas of promotion should that be the case - and as far as I can ascertain this entry has been made on valid grounds of authenticity. thank you for reading. Dr Alphonzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Alphonzo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I heard this band on radio 6, a popular radio show in the UK, and liked them, in my research I found two of their members are notable musicians, which is one of the requirements on wiki - it doesn't matter if you like the band or not, the fact it has notable musicians , that are listed means they should not be deleted - Magrat Garlik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.80.62 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) In regard to veracity of claims in regard to musicians on the Big Chief Mkuja page I quote from Wiki page Akrylykz Other members of the group were Steve Pears (vocals, tenor saxophone), Stevie "B" Robottom (vocals, alto saxophone, keyboards), Wojciech "Piotr" Swiderski (drums), Michael "Fred" Reynolds (bass), and Nik "Akrylyk" Townend (guitar).[1]Fred Reynolds toured with Roland Gifts Fine Young Cannibals in 2002 Discography from same page;Black and Dekker (with Desmond Dekker) - Stiff, SEEZ 26, 1980 Clive Thomas is mentioned on Wiki page for the 'Room' The Room formed in 1979 with an initial line-up of Dave Jackson (vocals), Robyn Odlum (guitar), Becky Stringer (bass), and Clive Thomas (drums, percussion).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahouna Dreaming (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SEE REVIEW OF THIS BANDS ALBUM AT WWW.PINKUSHION.COM ONLINE MUSIC SITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.247.90 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball[edit]

Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An NAIA women's basketball program is not notable. To make sure others don't think I'm nominating this because I don't like it, my formal reason is that this program (and accompanying season articles) fail WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding the following articles to be deleted in this nomination:
2011–12 Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 Lourdes Gray Wolves women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-party coverage (at least, no working links to it) —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Prof. squirrel no third party coverage.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nicolson[edit]

Steve Nicolson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here's an interesting one. This bio article about an actor was created onn 6 December 2010 in essentially the same form as it appears now. Since then, there have been no significant edits but just category changes, various tags (e.g. for notability) etc. No notability is suggested and no reliable sources are given. There is an external link, to IMDb, which is a word for word repeat and is sourced to Wikipedia! The list of roles may or not be accurate, but is suspect (e.g. he has appeared "in single episodes of...... Made in Romania, .... White Lightnin', ... Johnny English, .....All Men Are Mortal which are feature films and not TV series with episodes). Now, I may just be highly suspicious and this may be just a very badly written article, but the suspicion remains that this a two-bit actor with no real notability. Emeraude (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is an article that im surprised hasn't been Speedy Deleted yet. Has no Good citations is badly written and looks like somthing that was slaped together by an talent agent or a PR person. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He did have a leading role in Space Race (TV series) and was apparently really bad in the National Theatre's revival of War Horse[19] but he doesn't seem to quite meet WP:ACTOR based his roles, and there's no in-depth press/media coverage of him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has an "About This Person" page at The New York Times, but it's just a list. Has no third-party coverage that's not IMBD or Rotten Tomatoes or similar sites. So nothing that's not reviews of filmography lists. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:06, 9 December 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. Has been userfied by creator. Speedy G7 GedUK  14:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Jordan[edit]

Melody Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails even the lax standards of WP:PORNBIO, only one non-scene nomination. Fails the GNG, no GNews hits, all GBooks hits are spurious. Just another porn performer BLP without a shred of reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even though all the sources are blocked on my network it is clear that the subject matter has no reason to be on wikipedia.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, there are two non-scene-related nominations: Best New Starlet and Best Tease Performance (some users have tried to suggest that Best Tease Performance is a scene-related award but there has been no consensus for that). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete PORNBIO is disputed and over arching this is a clear community expectation that BLPs must be properly sourced. Indeed, wikipedia has no place for BLPs without impeccable sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO. That tease performance nomination is scene-related. The tease is only part of a scene and in many ways such a nomination can be considered even lesser than much of the scene nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where was that actually decided though? If you show me, I'll concede to a delete. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:46, 10 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Dulfer[edit]

Kelly Dulfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not contain any content other than references and secondly the article has only one reference. Article does not seem to be notable —FrankBoysmile 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not show any proof of notability and is a Short unhelpful article.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not up on all of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (and it has no specific mention for handball), but does the claim that "She plays ... on the Dutch national team" satisfy notability? Chris857 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My understanding of WP:NSPORTS is that, in the absence of contrary guidelines, it can be regarded as satisfied if the person concerned has competed in the world championships of an Olympic sport, provided these are regarded by the sport's governing body as equivalent in standard to the sport's Olympic events. On this reckoning, the 2013 World Women's Handball Championship, which is taking place at the moment, certainly seems to qualify, but only if she has not just been part of the team but has actually played. Despite wording that at first glance reads otherwise, the article stops just short of saying she has done so - which it looks as if she may well have done in the few days since the article was created (but I have not been able to properly verify this). But the situation seems to be that if she has played in the current world championship, she satisfies WP:NSPORTS, but if not, none of the previous events she has definitely played in seem to satisfy the criteria. PWilkinson (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regarding notability, this article was created based on the standards given in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, which says, "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." In this case, participation in the IHF World Women's Handball Championship, which should be regarded as highest level along with the Olympics. The first sentence in the nomination ("The article does not contain any content other than references") seems to be directly misleading, and was so even for the initial version of the article. I have since expanded the article slightly, in order to: 1) Document more explicitly that she actually played matches in the ongoing 2013 World Women's Handball Championship. 2) Added references from various sources, trying to document satisfaction of the WP:GNG criteria. Oceanh (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has participated in a major competition, several sources, meets basic notability under WP:SPORTCRIT. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Leek[edit]

Diane Leek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local councillors are not usually considered inherently notable. Being Lord Mayor is irrelevant - in Britain this is merely an honorary position in which one serves for only a year. All councillors will eventually become mayor if they serve on the council long enough. Looking on the Category:Lord Mayors of Sheffield, every other one with an article has been notable in some other way, such as being an MP or an influential local industrialist, often with a knighthood or baronetcy. She is simply not notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 9 December 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 December 9. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After a brief Google I cannot find any substantial account of her beyond the bio in the external links. Other Google results bring up only routine, passing references. I agree with the nominator that Lord Mayorship is nothing special.--A bit iffy (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a Sheffield resident, I can confirm that there is nothing special about the title Lord Mayor and as stated above, if you're there long enough, your turn comes around. (The "Lord" bit is because Sheffield has the status for its mayor to be so-called; it is still just an unelected one-year honorary position.) The rest of the article is general run-of-the-mill stuff that could apply to thousands of elected councillors all over the UK, apart from the circumstances of her having to stand for re-election, which is interesting but not of such earth-shattering import to warrant a Wikipedia article. Emeraude (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting: The bulk of the aricle is copied verbatim from the City Council's website linked at the foot of the article. Emeraude (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with with with user A bit iffy. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This likely resulted from a false equivalency between the role of mayor as it exists in some other countries (where they have a lot more political authority, and past a certain city size are generally considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles as long as they're properly sourced) and as it exists in the UK (where many of them hold an exclusively ceremonial role that probably isn't enough to confer notability by itself.) Directly elected mayors in England and Wales should certainly qualify for articles, but that doesn't apply to her; mayors of the "ceremonial" type should probably only have their own articles if there's properly sourced evidence that for one reason or another they've become more notable than the norm for that role, but that doesn't seem to apply here either. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- In a city the size of Sheffield, being leader (or elected city mayor - if they had one) might be notable, but mayor (or in a city Lord Mayor) is not. Commonly, the senior councillor who has not held the post gets it for one year. The question is thus was she WP-notable before appointment. WP:POLITICIAN implies not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Espire infolabs[edit]

Espire infolabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organisation has no obvious notability. References are PR and similar material. Fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that it's PR. First two pages of Google has only official websites, company reviews, and job offers. The only real contributor (Chamelei) has no contributions other than to this article, and is most likely an affiliate of the company. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence that this firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Stromberg[edit]

Joseph R. Stromberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy is just another in a long series of shout-y libertarian academic BLPs whose sources for notability lie in an incestuous web of fringe-y think-tanks, blogs etc. The "JoAnn Rothbard Chair" that he held doesn't seem to be a named chair in the sense intended per WP:PROF. Like most academics, he writes stuff and really that is about it: no big deal. Sitush (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There aren't reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:PROF: no claims of important contribution; lack of citations/reviews of his work; not held a named chair at a "major institution of higher education and research"; no other important positions, honors, fellowships held. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – a couple of weeks ago the possibility of AfD was brought up on the talk page. I posted a notability template and suggested we wait a few weeks. In the last few days some work has been done to improve the article. Let's see what develops. The improvements are being made, I believe, to help expand the walled garden. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more weeks, and then perhaps a few more? Maybe a few more after that? This is how articles that have been around since 2005 etc continue to exist despite not being related to notable subjects. You, Carolmooredc and others are contributing to WP more or less daily & thus the week or so that this AfD will run should suffice. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I said I'd support an AfD after a few weeks and I posted the template. (I certainly don't want this article to vegetate for 8 years.) Even with Carol's improvements (and mine), I doubt that notability will be satisfied. So I'm content to let this AfD run its course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)
  • It has already vegetated for eight years. That's long enough, template or no template. We've got to begin the process of getting a grip on these fluff pieces. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The guy is an author, not a professor. "Independent scholar" is an article on Wikipedia, so independent scholars certainly should be allowed to have articles. Wikipedia is not censored and libertarianism is not hard science so alleged fringy-ness is irrelevant. (I mean there are self-described libertarians in the House and Senate, aren't there?) He's published widely and been mentioned or used as a reference in a number of works, though the latter can be hard to put into a ref. I have been working on the article so I don't see the need to hurry an AfD, but I just spent half an hour and added four refs. Scholar. google search shows 100 results, of which I'm sure 20 or 30 would be of a high enough quality for some use. The problem is not finding refs, but sorting through all the many returns to find the best ones from the greatest variety of high quality RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, per AfD that says you can contact one or more Wikiprojects I put it at Wikiproject Libertarianism. Others can put on other relevant wikiprojects if they like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Author: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. His peers are a lot of tenured professors and/or experts in field of libertarianism. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "peers" implies notable, respected people, not fellow fringe-travellers. Otherwise every man and his dog could be notable, given sufficient websites and use of AuthorHouse etc. Thankfully, we generally do not accept fancruft and its ilk. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF applies to independent scholars: it covers those involved in "scholarly research or higher education" (my emphasis), and independent scholars would do the former. (And Wikipedia also has a page on mothers but that doesn't mean your mother is notable.) As I said above, there's no evidence of reviews of his work in mainstream/academic sources. Hence he doesn't meet WP:WRITER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stromberg is not an academic. He's a writer, but there's no secondary RS which indicates that his writings are noteworthy. @Srich, the goal is not to create larger walled gardens, it's to connect the garden to the real world when such connections exist. We have found no such connection in this case. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources don't show notability outside of Misean circles, and not much notability within. Attempts to get the article past stub stage run into this lack of sources, resulting in a fluffy, unencyclopedic article. MilesMoney (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Colapeninsula. No significant coverage of the person so does not meet WP:GNG; nor held any important positions, had any significant impact in any scholarly discipline, or meets any of the other criterias for WP:PROF. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:AUTH of being considered an "important figure"/"widely cited"/"originating a significant new concept" either. Mainly written for publications/netsites of lesser significance and has some citations, but doesn't seem to reach "widely cited". Iselilja (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So far there isn't a single independent source in the article. Profiles from institutes he is associated with, or author blurbs in books that include one of his essays -- those are not independent and therefore contribute nothing toward showing notability. I looked at a number of possible sources from book and scholar searches, and do not share Carolmooredc's optimism that they will be useful. They appear to be passing source citations, not discussion of Stromberg or his work. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Lacks ANY independent or mainstream source. Co-workers and colleagues from fringe, affiliated organizations don't cut it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All citations are lists of his articles. Reads more like a CV than an article. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The link to GScholar posted by Carolmooredc speaks volumes: just a smattering of citations, 2 here, 3 there, etc. No indication at all that he even approaches any of the cirteria of WP:ACADEMIC. No indication either that WP:Author or WP:GNG are met. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How big a smattering do you need? Just spent another 15 minutes researching and found whole article about him in a Kent State University academic publication and a mention in a book published by University of Chicago Press and two articles in a publication then run by Cato Institute. How many more like that do I need? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can probably ignore the Cato Institute ones, for starters: incest, as usual. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mentions" in articles or books are included in those "smatterings" that I was referring to. A whole article about him could be another matter. Could you please give us a link? --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kent State's http://www.kentstateuniversitypress.com/journals/civil-war-history/ Journal of Civil War History] has a whole article called "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: Modern Libertarians Interpret the United States Civil War, 1960s-1990s", September 1, 2000 (via Highbeam). The whole longish article is all about Stromberg's and another libertarian's views, comparing and contrasting. Hopefully I'll find a few more like that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely relevant. Unfortunately it is just one so far. (As an aside, the author of the linked piece, Thomas J. Pressly, may be more notable than Stromberg. And he's deceased, so no BLP issues. Just saying.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I saw the essay referred to in that KSU review & noticed that it didn't have many citations. There is a bit about it here[, from which I deduced a further issue, ie: those who have taken up his 1979 thesis are also oddballs who nestle closely to each other in the libertarian thinktanks etc, eg: Thomas DiLorenzo. It might be argued that the essay was a significant contribution to thought but if there are no others then the solution is to have an article about the essay, not the person. And whether or not it really was a significant contribution depends less on what his friends think and more on what historians generally think. For example, E. P. Thompson, who was a Marxist historian, was widely acclaimed for his The Making of the English Working Class & similar studies, not merely by fellow Marxists. Similarly, Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote widely and garnered significant attention from an equally wide group of people (both for and against him, in this instance). One notable essay that is accepted/discussed pretty much only by fellow-travellers does not really hit the mark. Is civil war history such a niche? It's 30 years since I studied it under Mark Kaplanoff at Cambridge but I can't recall any shortage of sources. What does the American Historical Review have to say about Stromberg's stuff? Does the review say much about Stromberg or just some stuff about the essay and its acceptance by a couple of his fellow-travellers? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just searched The War for Southern Independence: A Radical Libertarian Perspective at JSTOR. Zero hits. I've also just noticed that Jeff Riggenbach, who wrote the book I linked above, is yet another in the magic circle. Isn't it odd that these people praise and cite each other and no-one else even thinks to give them a mention, not even bothering to criticise? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beneffy[edit]

Beneffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a VOIP company founded in 2010. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article history shows only one non-minor contributor (Mentax), who has made no other edits (even minor ones) to other articles – he's most likely affiliated with the company. Article looks like a giant ad. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As others have said above, the current text reads like a feature ad for prospective customers. While that could be fixed by normal editing, I can find no evidence that the firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting, I check other pages like phonepower and build page for my company. If you think it's a advertising please delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_Power as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentax (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails GNG. Odd, because I can hear the name in my head as though it's widely known, but indeed there are no GNews results and I'm not seeing much otherwise, either. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:02, 12 December 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. CSD#G12 of http://acsaa.getafricaonline.com/About+ACSA -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African Computer Scientists Association[edit]

African Computer Scientists Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising and seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the claims in the article, I can't find any reliable sources on line that this computer organization with hundreds of thousands of members exists. I suspect this is some combination of a hoax or an attempt to pad someone's resume. SchreiberBike talk 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]



African Computer Scientists Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |WP:ORG|Notability requirements for non-profit organizations
  • Keep: References are available. I cannot add them myself, but here they are. RefsAvailable

Currently A.U estimated ACSA a Number of ACSA Members as Tree Hundred and twenty nine (329) Membership of Professors, One Hundred and two (102) Doctors and Nine hundred and eighty seven (987)Students with an extra large number of Computer Professionals.

Do not Delete- First of all, the administrator was clearly correct in declining a deletion because the Article was first seen to be missing some right figures and important points. I am a Professor of Computer Science and an information security professional. But let me say I am not posting about my business or profession... I am posting about the the African Computer Scientists Association and thus contributing to the topic . • Those who may still suggest the deletion of this Article may be a little confused and having problems with the information accuracy in this Article and have no knowledge of the subject. Enough references are available to support the African Computer Scientists Association which we all know as a very recognized Scientists Association in Africa. • You can also performed enough search with the contents. ACSA is not a fringe Organization. Only a subject matter expert can write about this Article, There seems to be some little typing mistake and omission in the writing moments, the Article’s information provided may have been misspelled or wrongly produced in the Article line, else confusion of figures in the Subject line. This Article must not be removed until one have enough cross-check all the necessary references and improvement for it further expansion ... I have added supporting informations by a reliable source and confirmed this article qualified on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

  • Keep: References are available. I cannot add them myself, but here they are.

African Union endorses the €100 Euros ICT Fund African Union endorses the €100 Euros ICT Project Fund to ACSA African Computer Scientists Association

Thank you for your contributions. DANIEL OBUOBI  (talk) Information Security Expert]] 11:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 11:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) The administrator did not decline the deletion of this artcle. No decision has been taken as it is still under discussion
2) Conform WP:OO, original research is not allowed.
3) There are no sources given. Not at all. Only reliable third party sources can determine if this organisation is important enough for a place on Wikipedia. So we need independent sources who write about the organisation.
4) External links should add something to the article. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.
The Banner talk 22:02, 14 December 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 redirect to Hot FM 91.3. Speedied due to copyvio, redirected to the radio station for now. SarahStierch (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Biju and Mithun Ramesh[edit]

Sindhu Biju and Mithun Ramesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTNEWS, an irrelevant radio station, known only for one event. Alex discussion ★ 12:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete asMerge to Hot FM 91.3 A single and only marginally newsworthy event outside the life of the station. But I do not understand the nominator's reference to an 'irrelevant' radio station; a radio station that has been around for a decade as I understand that this one has is probably notable and an article on it would be a suitable target. I thought I had checked for an existing article on the station - clearly I missed it. --AJHingston (talk) 13:46, 9 December 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. Discussions about merging or pruning can continue on the talk page. Despite the issues with the article, there's no consensus for its deletion. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rozen Maiden characters[edit]

List of Rozen Maiden characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of trivia in-universe information. All notable information has already been merged to the parent article Rozen Maiden DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this page being deleted and marked trivial (without discussion) when it contains many characters and information from 8 volumes of 2002 manga and 9 volumes of 2008 manga. You should refer to the ja wikipedia for reference. If this is trivial, you should check out Shakugan no Shana and Toaru Majutsu no Index, both of these are also long series light novels/manga with their own character pages 116.15.155.180 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Plot, WP:LISTN, WP:OR. The list goes against those three. When trimmed down to the essential plots, it was enough to merge into the main list. The lists you gave are in terrible shape. See (List of Fairy Tail characters) which only has essential plot points, passes List N, and doesn't have original research. Otherwise, 90% of anime manga character lists are marred by Fancruft. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at sources in Japanese on the character lists? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already merged all the important parts. These characters were pretty flat once the fancruft was removed, compared to List of Tales of Symphonia characters, List of Tales of Xillia characters, or the merged list at Tales of Graces. Don't I deserve some faith that my concision/merge is an improvement? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do, and I will look this over again this afternoon. I feel that some sort of guideline or essay should be in place though when it comes to handling character lists. Dragon do you have any ideas that could be put into a draft to guide future AfDs? I feel this is only the tip of the iceberg and would like to know where consensus stands on what character lists get kept and what ones go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I usually look at the content and number of characters, and see if they can be grouped or compressed into the parent article, like what I did for this article and Tales of Graces. I created character lists for Symphonia and Xillia for ease of access since the characters are a major component of the sequel of their respective series and having repeating characters on both games would be awkward. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The series has practically ended. It's currently filled with trifle fancruft. I have merged all the important characters and written them in an encyclopedic manner. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging ALL of the info back into the main article would make that article too long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a problem, since most of the content is unsupportable original research such as the astounding claim that "the word mercury is not used in German except for pseudo-scientific publications". Pburka (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the example you cite is very poorly worded. I think they meant red mercury when they said mercury, but one mistake is beside the point. Nothing about this list has to be notable other than that it would be acceptable as a list in the main article per WP:CSC, WP:SALAT, etc. That is why merging it back would be totally within Wikipedia guideline/policy/etc. except that the article would then be too long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't once you remove the fancruft and written it in a concise encyclopedic tone, which I have done. This list was merged before the GA and was brought back because someone wants to treat it like a fansite. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it needs serious pruning. Character lists are perfectly acceptable, and it is standard practice here if a show's character list gets too long. The only problem is that such lists are prone to fancruft, but cleanup and not deletion is the solution. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, it's just going to get redirected cause I have already merged all notable information already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon if you can cite the character information in the Rozen Maiden article I do not think citing the character list would be a problem over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its best to improve it, with a series with multiple formats, each being very different. Specific and relevant characters will be missing, if deleted.Lucia Black (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't have potential to have encyclopedic value such as conception or decent level of character reception. I've already tried. It will eventually degrade even further into a saturation of fancruft and plot summaries like the majority of character lists. Justifying the character page because the they have multiple appearances is like saying Tales of Graces should have a character list so they can have more plot summaries based on their other appearances. It would just be a collection of non-notable plot summaries. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not even in artbooks or exclusive interviews? I also remember there being a poll on favorite doll, and I'm sure it was done more than once. Also I've seen all of the anime and read all the manga. The anime differs significantly. Enough to mention them within the characters. there are characters that appear in the anime only and ones that appear in the manga only.Lucia Black (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning differences between the anime and the manga is pure original research unless you can find reliable sources describing those differences. Even saying that a character appears in the manga only is troublesome, because, without a reliable source, the only way that can be verified is to watch all of the anime. Pburka (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then its not original research. the differences can be mentioned. Look at fullmetal alchemist for example. You can verify by adding in the anime episode that shows the difference. Regardless, that's not a serious issue and I'm still highlighting artbooks and interviews and popularity polls.Lucia Black (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. If the information can only be determined by combining multiple primary sources, then it's original research. That's the primary problem with this list. Beyond the names, it's nearly entirely original research. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One can highlight what the other has, and it won't be OR. You only need one primary source to prove that the difference exist, not that you have to highlight both. Even then one doesn't need to call it a difference. The word OR is more of a construed fact that can't be proven or hasn't been proven. Regardless the majority of the information is relevant. Afterall, the series differ drastically, and you don't have to take my word for it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 05:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Hoon Lee[edit]

Jung Hoon Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A man with a job at a non-notable firm. Fails WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very close to A7--there is nothing there which is likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination: there's no evidence that Mr Lee meets WP:BIO, and it's not clear why an article was created on him. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything that suggests this individual meets our notability guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mkdwtalk 00:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Pande[edit]

Susmita Pande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This rambling and poorly-referenced resumé of an article does not make it clear that she satisfies the guidelines for notability of academics, Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Is her present position one which satisfies "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution?" Per the one ref, a link to her college, the department she heads as Professor only includes 3 other faculty, with titles Reader and Lecturer. per another criterion,has her work had the needed impact? Not every professor has the notability needed to justify a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a bit of editing to get the article into better shape, and I don't think it should be deleted until others with more knowledge on the subject have had a chance to have a look at it - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are still no refs but 2 university websites with faculty listings. There i no indication that she satisfies WP:PROF. It is just a resume of an average college teacher. Edison (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any indication of notability. Unless someone finds evidence to the contrary, I'm going with a "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it's more of a CV than an article (WP:NOTLINKEDIN). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The Google scholar citations are not enough (either indicating lack of impact or working in a field not covered well by Google scholar, I don't know which but it doesn't matter because either way there's no evidence) and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Controller[edit]

Human Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animorphs. More glossary articles that don't really belong on Wikipedia. Detailed, in-universe analysis and trivia can be covered on Wikia. Sourced commentary can be put in the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- part of a large walled garden of Animorphs cruft that lacks any sources and is nothing but plot summary written in an in-universe style. Reyk YO! 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leera[edit]

Leera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time Matrix (The Animorphs)[edit]

Time Matrix (The Animorphs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- part of a large walled garden of Animorphs cruft. It is nothing but in-universe plot summary and has no sources to establish either verifiability or notability. Reyk YO! 08:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bot Game[edit]

Wild Bot Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Wild Bot Game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

An upcoming game that fails WP:GNG. The only sources that I have been able to find for this do not appear to be independent of the game's developer. FunPika 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) FunPika 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not passing WP:GNG notability criteria with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. The article is also WP:CRYSTAL and given almost no hits beyond the develop's own posted material, so it is also highly WP:PROMO. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of All My Children crew[edit]

List of All My Children crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory or repository or a television guide. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a directory, fancruft, etc. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was thinking this would be useless cruft, but there are so many blue links showing that I think this has a valid navigational function. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Formula One Grands Prix[edit]

List of current Formula One Grands Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary. It's effectively an amalgamation of parts of List of Formula One circuits and parts of 2013 Formula One season. DH85868993 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As pointed out, there is a problem with the very concept of 'current season' (we are currently between seasons) and it is an unnecessary fork. I am not convinced by the case for a merger with List of Formula One circuits - the only information not there already is the date of the most recent GP and winner, and the other list is concerned with all circuits and the last race held there is not necessarily the most notable. Somebody wanting information about an individual circuit will go to the article on that, or the relevant race, where they will find much more of interest. --AJHingston (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We do not need the articles consisting solely of information already recorded elsewhere. If you wish to know the current Grands Prix, then head to the current season article. QueenCake (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of 'current' makes it an unsuitable or unlikely redirect. As for the content it seems redundant hence a delete !vote for me. Mkdwtalk 00:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to F.E.A.R.. Feel free to merge, or propose merge on the talk page of the appropriate articles. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PANICS[edit]

PANICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this series. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:58, 25 November 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, buffbills7701 03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to F.E.A.R. - I've actually been able to find the following references after a brief Google search:
    • An article from GamesIndustry, which mentions that the series has been nominated for several awards [20]
    • A brief mention in the book The Machinima Reader [21]
    • A brief mention in a study guide for the textbook American Film: A History by Jon Lewis (the actual textbook doesn't have a Google Books preview, but if the series is mentioned in the study guide, than certainly it must be mentioned in the textbook as well) [22]
Based on the notability displayed by these three references, a case could probably be made for keeping this as a standalone article, but I'm still leaning towards merging this into the article about the video game that this series was based on. If someone decides to do a longer search someday and manages to find more in-depth production/reception information, then maybe they could give this series its own article again, but for right now there just isn't enough real world information. Besides, this really should have its own section in the F.E.A.R. article anyway. --Jpcase (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blood Cancer DKMS[edit]

Delete Blood Cancer DKMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I consider this pure promotionalism for the organization itself and for its cause. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:46, 9 December 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 deleted by Fuhghettaboutit as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Womenuminatti[edit]

Womenuminatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. No Google results for the title, nor for "Trassenti Vanesce", nor for any of the 3 references. The last one, though, is a bit trickier, since there actually is something called Kriemhilde. However, a Worldcat search for swansong and kriemhilde comes up empty. Seems to be a hoax. Jinkinson talk to me 03:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax and an attempt to promote said hoax. When nothing comes up for the term or for the majority of the names or terms in the article, then it's either the best hidden secret or a hoax. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Johnston[edit]

Scott Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist lacking references to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable artist; no press/media coverage, no evidence of major awards, artistic significance, or critical attention, just a portrait artist for hire who's painted a few people who're not exactly household names in most of the USA let alone the rest of the world. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 9 December 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 (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Kimball[edit]

Penn Kimball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Prod declined due to obits, but there doesn't seem to be much on him before then. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Clear GNG pass. Here's a quick tip for future reference: if there is an obituary in the Washington Post or the New York Times, the subject is notable. Carrite (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And when there are obituaries in BOTH the Washington Post AND the New York Times, one should say "whoops!" and withdraw the nomination. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's a note in the NY Times piece: "A documentary about Mr. Kimball was shown on PBS, and in 1984 he filed a $10 million lawsuit against the federal government to clear his name." This documentary would also count to GNG, of course. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...This documentary aired on Frontline, April 14, 1987, entitled "The Secret File," per THIS. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times also reviewed his book, The File, in 1983, and that deals largely with his biography as well, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. Even if all we had were the obits, since when are we required to also have pre-obituary sources? This is a gross exaggeration of what WP:NOTMEMORIAL says, which is merely that dead people are not exempted from our notability requirements. I.e., there is absolutely nothing in there adding extra notability requirements for using obituaries relative to other sources. The nominator has been around for long enough to know better. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep many web publications, passes GNG. Alex discussion ★ 12:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Obits in the NYT and WPost: clear meet of WP:GNG. I am baffled by the nom by such an experienced editor. Am I missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability demonstrated by obituaries in major news outlets and media coverage during his life. (And thanks for the leads; Google News is making it very hard for me to search for sources.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Google news archive appears to be dead — they've dumped all that content into the web search where you can't find it among the junk. This is a big step backwards in usability imo. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarantine War (Movie)[edit]

The Quarantine War (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability; does not meet A7 requirements for speedy deletion. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources, and TVTyler12 is a Youtube account, so it might almost qualify under A7 as web content (if it were for sure web content). Chris857 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotional item. If it winds up being kept it needs to be moved to The Quarantine War (film) to follow the naming conventions for films. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable film. Since it hasn't been released A7 probably wouldn't apply since we don't know if it will be added to YouTube. I wish you well Tyler, but your film just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Though it seems likely, there's no direct evidence that it qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM in that there is almost no coverage on it. Mkdwtalk 00:17, 15 December 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. Two relists has not resulted in consensus. After reading through the discussion and searching for sources myself, I'm inclined to believe that a 3rd relist would probably not be fruitful. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Popp[edit]

Alexandru Popp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no indication that this individual meets the WP:ARTIST criteria, or that he "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

A word of caution for those seeking references: "Popp" is a relatively common Romanian name (yes, despite what the article says, he was Romanian, although born in the Arad area when it was part of Hungary). One "Alexandru Popp" who comes up repeatedly on Google Books was a businessman, for instance. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the deprodding editor noted, there are a lot of suggestive snippets at Google, GNews, and GBooks, but nothing obviously conclusive. I hope someone who can handle Romanian will wade through and comment on whether any of these appear to be of substance. Our hypothetical Romanian speaker might also have a look at the long untranslated text of the earlier version [23] that was (correctly) removed from the article, to see if there's anything in there to suggest that reliable sources may actually exist. (Maybe the nominator already did this, in which case I'd be interested in xis interpretation.) GBooks includes an retrospective volume from the Museum of Art in Cluj-Napoca, [24] of which he was evidently a founder, but I'm not sure how much notability that conveys. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Popp did not found the art museum - that institution dates to 1951, two years after his death - he did found (or at least was the first director of) the School of Fine Arts, now the Art and Design University of Cluj-Napoca. (This source, from the university's site, also informs us he'd made a name for himself on the faculty of the Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design.) So there's that.
    • Given that one can't actually see and evaluate the full context of snippets, I'm a bit wary of appealing to them, but for the most part, looking through, I do only see his name as part of a series of names, rather than something more in-depth. Probably the greatest depth (and it isn't very deep at all) is this, which informs us he has two paintings at the Cluj art museum.
    • The original text of the article is also intriguing. On the one hand, it's from Scînteia, the Romanian Communist Party equivalent of Pravda, and it's from 1983, by which time the Ceaușescu regime was veering from slightly more objective historiography to a more concertedly propagandistic tone. On the other hand, it purports to be by the highly respected Raoul Șorban, and I can't say there are any red flags (no pun intended) in terms of ideological content.
    • I think this is one of those cases where notability is swirling just beneath the surface, but nothing definite (yet) to clinch it. - Biruitorul Talk 21:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (as deprodder). I agree with Biruitorul's judgement that this is right on the borderline, but ultimately I don't think there's enough coverage out there for the article to be viable. I worry that systemic bias is at play, since it's totally possible that a Romanian- or Hungarian-speaking editor with access to a library in one of those countries could find sources, but in the absence of any evidence of those sources existing it's hard to advocate keeping this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:28, 25 November 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) 00:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, found one more source and added it to the article, now working with it. In combination with what Biruitorul found this should be enough to demonstrate notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 8 December 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) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can't read most of the hits for his name on Google books, both because of the language and from not being previewable, but what's there seems to be mostly about the subject (rather than other people with his name, although there is some of that too) and enough to convince me that he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: can someone clarify whether the source found and added by Biruitorul Ymblanter is satisfactorily independent to indicate notability? As far as I can tell it's a program/promotional material for an exhibition including Popp, and if he were alive I'd be inclined to say that was a problem, but since he's dead probably not so much? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably mean the source added by me? It is indeed a catalogue of an exhibition of a number of Romanian (specifically I believe Timisoara) artists, all dead long before it was held, organized by the local university, apparently by a university professor who studies their art. In this sense, it is not really independent, in the same way as e.g. a commentary on Shakespeare by a Harvard professor studying the tragedies of Shakespeare would not be independent, and there is probably a bit of promotion involved, but I do not see any financial interests here. I think by our standard this would pretty much count as an independent source.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, yeah, now corrected. And I agree, I think. On the one hand, WP:GNG's provisions relating to independence would seem to rule out sources like this, but then again it's ambiguous and there's really no reason why they should. It just seems odd that if, say, Damien Hirst were to die tomorrow, a bunch of otherwise unusable sources would suddenly become usable (and indicative of notability) despite the content probably not being any different? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomorrow probably not, but I would say if in five years his manager (assuming he has one) will convince Tate Modern to have a personal exhibition, yes, we could use the catalog of that exhibition as a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 14 December 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) 00:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Beaked Cockatoo[edit]

Blue Beaked Cockatoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any reliable sources. Seems, in my view, to be a hoax. Jinkinson talk to me 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Jinkinson; The reason there are no common reliable sources is because this is a newly discovered species or cross breed of bird, it is currently understudy and more information will be added as research is done, this species will not go under any test that will harm it or injure it. I fully understand your disbelief and why you believe this is a Hoax, but I assure you, this is not a simple Hoax.--Cadkane1 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x3 Delete - The Wikipedia article is the only Google hit, Cacatua ophthalmica is the species name for the Blue-eyed Cockatoo. For any newly described species, there will almost surely be Google hits, since such research is published. Chris857 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as home-made taxonomy. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that this particular type of cockatoo exists except for this Wikipedia page. Even a search for "Blue Billed Cockatoo" doesn't come up with anything to show it exists at all, let alone as an informal or unofficial thing. This is either a hoax or an attempt to promote something someone came up with one day. Or both. I've tagged it for a speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the article creator, since he is checking here- assuming that this isn't an attempt to promote a hoax... you can't just up and say something exists and then put it on Wikipedia. You have to back it up with reliable sources such as news articles, journal entries in peer reviewed journals about the bird, and so on. Even then, you'd have to argue a pretty persuasive battle to show that any new hybrid deserves its own entry apart from its parent bird species- it's very common for new unrecognized breeds of animals such as dogs to not have an article or a mention on Wikipedia due to a lack of coverage and recognition from reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy has been declined, but I'm more convinced than ever that this is a hoax. The article uses the species name Cacatua ophthalmica, which goes to a different type of cockatoo. Plus the article asserts that the birds are known to live up to a certain amount of time, but again- this article is the only source for this. There are literally no sources out there for this at all. None. Zip. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax or not, lacks reliable sources. JNW (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll AGF and assume that it's a genuine new species, but we must wait with an article like this until it's been reported in recognised journals and other established sources. But for now, it's definitely too soon for the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kudpung. If it is indeed a new taxon, it still needs to be described formally before it can be recognized as such. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know if I would necessary assume bad faith simply because this is, more or less, the creator's first real contribution, but the fact that the article claims that the animal is crossed with a species of unknown bird makes me skeptical as to whether it really exists. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't able to find any coverage. Mkdwtalk 00:16, 15 December 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 per WP:HEY. The nomination appears to have been made in good faith, but the article has been improved by the addition of heretofore unlikely sources. Bearian (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 18 December 2013

Monica Larner[edit]

Monica Larner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sufficient reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG or evidence of notability in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources offered are either primary or fail to mention the subject at all. The only possibly relevant secondary sources are two articles offering routine coverage of the same unremarkable industry award. Msnicki (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional relevant secondary sources added and included recent controversy involving subject with citations to Forbes and Wine-Searcher. --WineDWS (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only secondary sources present are the WSJ article that I can't read all of but isn't directly about the subject, the NY Times and independent articles which don't mention the subject, an unreliable Forbes article, and an italian article in which she receives a mention. This just isn't good enough, especially for a BLP. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WSJ, NYTimes and Forbes all directly mention and are certainly valid, reliable sources. --WineDWS (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take your word with WSJ. NYTimes definitely doesn't, providing you're still referring to the one I linked above. The Forbes article is unreliable because it's written by a 'contributor', who is not a member of staff at Forbes; in case you're unaware Forbes recently changed their content to allowing many more people to publish content on their site as with the Huffington Post. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a subscription to the WSJ and I did look at that article. It doesn't even mention the subject. Msnicki (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think User:WineDWS and User:MonicaLarner are the same person. I note that the photo of the subject by the subject was uploaded by WineDWS, the author of the article, suggesting that this article was created as an autobiography, a practice we discourage per WP:AUTO. I've opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WineDWS. Msnicki (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear to be notable from an internet search. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a published author with books published through Rizzoli publication that is part of RCS MediaGroup (So a legit published author, not just self-published.) Also, being a head critic at the Wine Advocate for a major wine region is a big deal with it being one of the heights of the profession. (i.e. Antonio Galloni, David Schildknecht, etc). Furthermore, when you use a internet search engine that focuses on wine-related reliable source you find oodles of hits (several thousand) that clearly passes WP:GNG. Even Forbes and Newsweek cites her as a reliable source. AgneCheese/Wine 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not hugely convinced. I'm not certain of the policies/guidelines regarding authors, is having published books a sign of notability? As for the sources, as I mentioned above the Forbes article is not reliable (written by a 'contributor'), and the second has her opinion on something, and isn't about her herself. As for the Able Grape link, can you find enough information actually about Monica rather than written by her or containing a comment from her? Samwalton9 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that you dismiss the many time times when Larner is cited as an authority on wine when one of the major notability criterion at WP:AUTHOR states 1.) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Being the head critic of a major wine region for The Wine Advocate puts Larner in high regard within the wine industry. And as we can see from several links, she is cited often cited by reliable sources as an expert within her field, due in part, to her being a published and well established wine writer. AgneCheese/Wine 07:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can also add WP:ANYBIO's notability criterion of 1.) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. with Larner's winning one of wine journalism highest honors being named "Best Young Journalist of the Year for the second time in four years." AgneCheese/Wine 07:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if notability can be established like that, are there any/enough reliable sources about her specifically to write anything substantial in the article? Samwalton9 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is established by WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and subpolicies like WP:AUTHOR all the time which Larner clearly passes. There is no additional bar beyond those policies that an article needs to reach and as the old saying goes-WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The purpose of this discussion is to merely demonstrate that notability exist. Reaching one of the heights of her profession, being head critic of a major wine region for the hugely influential The Wine Advocate, is well sourced and the link I posted above of her winning, repeatedly, one of the highest honors in wine journalism and being cited as an expert in her field easily surpasses the bar of WP:GNG. AgneCheese/Wine 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in listing sections of the guidelines as reasons to keep unless the subject actually satisfies them. WP:GNG requires multiple independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. Those simply do not exist. WP:ANYBIO gives alternative criteria in lieu of sources but the awards contemplated are things like Nobel Prizes, not minor industry awards that are definitely not well-known. Similarly, WP:AUTHOR contemplates a lot more than simply being a wine critic. The subject is not exactly Shakespeare. Fundamentally, the problem here is that it is not sufficient on Wikipedia that a subject seem notable to that individual and her friends. They actually have to be notable, meaning that others not connected to the subject must take note and they must do in reliable sources. That simply hasn't happened. There is simply nothing here on which to base a claim of notability. Msnicki (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are demonstrating some systematic WP:BIAS here in your dismissal of major and significant achievements in the wine industry. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia that covers a wide spectrum of disciplines, including wine. Just because something is not significant to you, personally, does not mean it is not significant on a global scale in other areas beyond your own interest and experiences. So, yes, major wine writers who reach some of the highest spheres of influence in the wine world (such as being the head critic for a major wine region for the highly influential The Wine Advocate as well previous work for Wine Enthusiast, another influential wine magazine) and who, repeatedly, win significant awards that carry great weight within in the industry are notable.
I have no connection to Monica Larner so your line that "the problem here is that it is not sufficient on Wikipedia that a subject seem notable to that individual and her friends" is false. The subject seems notable to

veteran Wikipedians who have extensive experience working on wine articles and dealing with wine-related reliable sources. She seems notable because she passes several of WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR criteria and has clearly achieved a position of significance and influence within wine journalism. I find it a tad humorous that I'm often accused of being a "deletionist" in WP:WINE circles due to my more hardline stance on wine-related notability and have no problem calling a spade a spade when the subjects are clearly not notable. I have as little patience for self-promotion as the next Wikipedian and do not doubt that the Monica Larner article can be improved but, in the world of wine, Larner's notability is unquestioned. So unless we change the notability rules to only make Shakespeare and other Anglo/Pokemon/18-35 male demographic/Etc topics eligible then this is an easy keep. AgneCheese/Wine 21:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to your opinion based on your personal knowledge of the broad topic of wine and of this specific subject. The problem is that WP:IKNOWIT is an argument to avoid. We're all (or at least, most of us) anonymous here. We agree to decide things based on published sources, not assertions that on this, we're an expert, so trust us.
I profess no special knowledge of either wine or this individual. I'm attracted to AfDs because I enjoy the careful reasoning behind our requirements for multiple reliable independent secondary sources - and our technical definitions of each of those words - as a way of objectively deciding whether notability is established and whether we should have an article without having to argue about which of us knows more about the topic.
I understand that in your opinion the subject is well-known to anyone who knows anything about wine and unquestionably notable. If you think only a dunce would not know this, that's okay, too. This is your right. I'm sorry you took offense at my "friends" and "Shakespeare" comments but I'm also surprised that even this little bit of hyperbole would seem so much more important to you than my point about sources and the plain fact that we just don't have them, nor is there persuasive evidence she meets other criteria for notability in lieu of sources. Msnicki (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 December 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) 01:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the thoughtful and forceful analysis by Agne27, certainly one of our best editor on wine topics. I've done a little bit of editing on wine, and have disagreed with Agne once or twice, usually me contesting the editor's somewhat deletionist tendencies, as I see it. But those disagreements have always been respectful of Agne's expertise, which is far greater than mine in this field. So when Agne says that Monica Larner is notable, I am convinced, and the sources tell me so as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate, please, which sources you rely on? Is even one of them reliable independent and secondary and actually about the subject? Msnicki (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know that you are critical of the Forbes source, I consider it quite good for a journalist. On the other hand, using your impossibly high standards, we could delete every biography of a journalist, and then move on to deleting Amy Tan, Mark Twain, Harper Lee and Kurt Vonnegut, all clearly inferior to Shakespeare. Let's start with that Lee woman, who was really nothing more than a one hit wonder. Perhaps WP:BLP1E? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My standards are not "impossibly high". They're simply the ones specified in our guidelines. Entire books have been written about Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut, easily establishing their notability many times over; arguing there's any similarity between these famous authors and the subject at hand is just dumb. The Forbes article is, at best, weak. It's not even really about the subject; it's more about Vintner Fulvio Bressan's Facebook rant. But thanks for clarifying that this is all you've got. Msnicki (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for my argument being "dumb", it was a conscious and deliberate parody of your "not exactly Shakespeare" standard. As for the Forbes source being all that I've got, mentioning one source does not logically imply that no other sources exist. In my judgment, cumulatively, the sources of varying quality in the current version of the article add up to notability. You disagree, and so be it. Let the closing administrator sort it out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that my comment made sense and yours doesn't. She's not exactly Shakespeare. Is that really in dispute? She's also not exactly Twain or Vonnegut or any other author most people would recognize.
There are two ways to establish notability. The usual way is multiple reliable independent secondary sources talking about the subject. Those simply don't exist in this case. The other way is to show notability in lieu of sources. For example, any athlete who wins a medal at the Olympics is presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS.
For authors and other creative professionals, it's possible to argue, per WP:AUTHOR, that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This allows us to have articles on scientists and others who publish important and widely-cited research and other material but whose personal lives attract less attention. But it's not enough just to assert that an individual is regarded this way or widely-cited. All that's changed is the evidence you need. Instead of evidence (sources) about the subject, it changes to evidence (sources) demonstrating that high regard (and, no, an industry award for a "best young journalist" is not going to do it) or those numerous citations (not just WP:GOOGLEHITS, but citations in, e.g., Google Scholar) of the subject's work. We just don't have that, either. Msnicki (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agne27. I couldn't have said it better. For anyone looking into wine, Larner's name comes up more than most writers as an expert. The comment by Msnicki that Larner is "not exactly Shakespeare" is ridiculous, and she should focus on her work writing stubs on "not exactly important" microprocessors. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you can't supply sources, there's always the ad hominem approach. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just like when someone knows little about a subject, they put it up for AfD and make snarky and flippant comments, and then act as if their opinion of that subject matters. Sure, you can ignore the thousands of hits establishing notability (several mentioned by other commenters above), have fun with your microprocessor stubs. You're not exactly Shakespeare either.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS are not helpful in establishing notability. That's yet another argument to avoid. The personal attack is even less helpful. Msnicki (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Paul_012 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Thai general election[edit]

Next Thai general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While a next election is almost certain to take place sometime in the future, no details are known. Circumstances may wildly change, and the article as it currently stands is pure speculation. Paul_012 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Right after this AfD was created, the prime minister dissolved the House of Representatives. It appears the subject will soon have plenty of discussion after all. Withdraw. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 December 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. JodyB talk 12:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davis (actor)[edit]

Kyle Davis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage found. Has had a string of acting roles, but none of them seem to qualify as 'major' and in most cases he appears well down the cast list. Michig (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Regarding sources, most of it comes from his IMDb page. Not sure how reliable that is for Wikipedia, but there's that. Thief12 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP If the main problem was the lack of sources, I added a source that confirms how he got into acting business. The last part of the article is about his credits, which can be confirmed in IMDb. The only part that's still "unsourced" is the part about his childhood, but like I said above, it's taken from IMDb. If the problem is how notable he is, I don't know how we should weight that. He's had a couple of recurring roles in notable shows, so I think that's more than enough. Thief12 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that by Wikipedia standards (WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR) he isn't notable. He doesn't appear to have had any major roles and he has received hardly any coverage. IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 1 December 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) 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage either, apart from the source that's been added to the article. But one source does not equal notability. Who know, this may be a "Not yet" rather than a "Never". Moswento talky 11:37, 2 December 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) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's an interview by Twitch Film about The Last Lovecraft, in which he starred. Besides that, there's little to be found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) The interview cited by NinjaRobotPirate calls the subject a "Star". (2) He's not had any starring roles, but has had recurring supporting roles in three popular TV series. In the past, we have kept such actors. In fact, if we didn't, many a character actor would have to be deleted, for consistency's sake. Not that I'm a hobgoblin. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Delhi[edit]

Ramakrishna Mission Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Significance .... Alferdomach (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delhi branch of Ramakrishna Mission. Notable alright. --Ekabhishektalk 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 November 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) 01:05, 2 December 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) 01:40, 9 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOVA-MBA Association[edit]

NOVA-MBA Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pure promotionalism; a good deal of the article is simply a list of sponsors. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can remove that section - agreed. But delete the entire page? Association does meet criteria of notability ... would keep no? Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 24 November 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) 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the removed the controversial section on sponsors. Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 07:01, 4 December 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) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no further comments are added, can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 06:10, 10 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger (company)[edit]

Schrödinger (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google News Archive search for { "Schrödinger LLC" } turns up just seven hits, including two pieces of mere local news coverage published in the Portland Business Journal. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm finding quite a bit of coverage (excluding Erwin Schrodinger) of the company's operations, investments by Gates, purchase of another firm in the field, etc. It's not HUGE notability, but the coverage seems to me to be quite substantial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those hits are unconnected with Schrödinger LLC. Some are connected with the company, but does even a single one of them include significant coverage? We normally require, IIRC, a bare minimum of two references which include significant coverage. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing "quite a bit" of significant coverage myself about Schrödinger LLC. There is one very lengthy article in the weekly Portland Business Journal (Schrödinger are HQ'd in Oregon) and that seems to be it. The only claim to any notability is in relation to Bill Gates' investment and the other coverage is tiny, or about Gates. WP:NCORP requires some evidence of general news coverage and I'm not seeing any of that at all. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in part for the reasons given by Candleabracadabra, but also because its products are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry and by drug design scientists both in industry and academia. There must be hundreds of links to their products in the scientific literature. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even the sources you can access via the nominator's link show minimal notability. Click through the links and you see one PBJ "story" is one of their non-stories, but it provided a link to the Puget Sound Biz Journal story which then provides a link to the WSJ story. I'm pretty sure the WSJ is considered a national source, and both the PBJ and Seattle version are more of a regional source, not local (local is truly meant to be the small town newspaper, not publications covering major metro areas). Throw in the other sources from Candleabracadabra, plus items such as the Seattle PI, The Oregonian, offline sources (Bell, J. (2010). Gates bets $10M on Schrödinger. Oregon Business Magazine, 33(6), 46.), more paywall sources (Exploring medicine's molecular frontiers: These companies could make a difference to human health and Oregon's economy. Suzanne Stevens. Oregon Business. 25.2 (Feb. 2002) p25 - 2 paragraphs on the company) and it passes the GNG bar. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is national.
  2. I just investigated and discovered that a newspaper covering a major metropolitan area is indeed "regional". I have now edited WP:CORP to reflect this. (Diff.) Thank you for pointing it out to me.
  3. The Seattle PI article you mention is just a routine funding announcement and fails SIGCOV. The Oregonian article is also a funding announcement; I don't think it's enough to base a Wikipedia article off of. Do there exist two sources which you yourself have viewed and which include SIGCOV of Schrödinger?
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while you may not consider those articles to be signifcant coverage because you consider them to be "a routine funding announcement", I do. Did it get more press because of the investor? Yep, sure did. Does that matter? No it does not. The fact is, the press took note of the company because of Billy's money, but they still took note (and we are talking about mainstream press, not some online only outlet with three readers dedicated to investments in this field). Since the press took note, they are notable (a derivative of note). Similar to how criminals become notable, not because they did anything great, it's just the press took note of them. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 3 December 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) 01:11, 2 December 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) 01:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the RS coverage discussed above, there is also this Nature.com column: [25] Notability is established for this company.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RS found above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:25, 13 December 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 are proposals to merge this with a list of characters, but that is a discussion for the talkpage at this point. In any case, there is no consensus for an outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Ryugen[edit]

Kamen Rider Ryugen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reason as the Kamen Rider Zangetsu AfD. Hansen Sebastian 10:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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) 01:17, 2 December 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) 01:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a character from a toy movie. There is no independent notability here, besides a couple of mentions in the usual fanzines. If the practice of these manga/tokusatsu/whatever editors was followed wiki-wide, then every single character in every single movie and TV show would warrant an article. The "information" currently in the article could easily be merged into the main article. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He is one of the main characters in the TV series, not a movie, so he is independently notable. Interviews are found in the various links I posted above with the actor about his role.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? How many of these people would get their own articles, fictional biography and all? None, and for a very good reason. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't from a movie. It is from a television series that will be on TV for another 9 months and will also be featured in a film in box offices this weekend and again in August of 2014 and next December. Individual articles exist for fictional characters all over this project and your dismissal is unnecessarily flippant. Yes, the character may just be part of a 50 or so episode, three feature film toy commercial, but that doesn't make the subject not notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 9 December 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. JodyB talk 12:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Zangetsu[edit]

Kamen Rider Zangetsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This Rider article needs to be a part of the Rider collection articles of a certain Rider Series' template (i.e. Baron, Zangetsu, and Ryugen in template:Kamen Rider Gaim). Hansen Sebastian 10:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. It fails to establish notability, and unless the above links add some sort of real world information to the article, they don't have much worth in being added. TTN (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They provide information on the character as well as the actor who portrays him so yes, I believe that is met.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of information is it? Does it provide actual detail as to the creation, development, or reception of the character? Without context, it could just be trivial mentions for all I can tell, which are worthless for notability. TTN (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In this one, the actor portraying the character discusses the character and how he feels he should be portraying the character amongst the much younger cast members, as well as mentioning the character's design motif. This piece also mentions the design motif, but the whole article is very short.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like it'd be more relevant to Kamen Rider Gaim#Production and development than the character article. It already has a bit about one of the other actors, so it would certainly fit. I don't really see it as significant enough to allow it to support an entire article unless there is some accompanying reception info. TTN (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it regards the particular character the actor talking about his role would fit better on the article on the role itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:11, 30 November 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) 01:17, 2 December 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) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters. Merge into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters and leave redirect behind. JodyB talk 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Baron[edit]

Kamen Rider Baron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 25 November 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) 01:18, 2 December 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) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters or delete. More in-universe biographies of non-notable fictional characters. These are more suited to Wikia, where notability and reliable sources are unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I not list three separate reliable sources where the subject is discussed above?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else Merge all content into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters with redirect. Note that merging will make the list article far too large if the other characters up for deletion are also merged. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the character list and merge at editors' discretion. Only in-universe information, no indication of independent notability.  Sandstein  09:24, 21 December 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. Keep for now. Please propose any merges on the article talk pages per Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger SarahStierch (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrider (Kamen Rider)[edit]

Skyrider (Kamen Rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet N or GNG and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 30-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - If there are sources later made available, it can be brought back, but it should not continue to exist in its current state without sources. TTN (talk) 17:08, 30 November 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) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 3 December 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) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a relevant article where it can be merged without causing the type of confusion already shown above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:30, 10 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Orifici[edit]

Benjamin T. Orifici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film maker lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. Film is a small budget independent production. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:56, 25 November 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) 01:48, 2 December 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) 01:30, 9 December 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. And move to Midisho.  Sandstein  09:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeshi[edit]

Medeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any traces on the internet about this village; there are some results for medeshivalley but they seem to be irrelevant since none makes mention of this village. Itemirus (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have to agree with Itemirus as such I haven't been able to find very few sources that mention it at all. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename While this is definitely not a reliable source, one of the entries on it does suggest that Medeshi is a variant name for what Google Maps shows as Midhisho (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which verifiably fits most of the information in the article. And, while I can not prove it, I think it likely to be the same place as Medishe (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which gets quite a lot of coverage as one of the first places to suffer aerial bombardment during a colonial war, the Somaliland campaign (1920) against Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. Seeing that Somali did not have a standardised Latin orthography until about 40 years ago and has not exactly been a common tourist destination at any time since then, some variation in placenames, particularly of smaller places, is perhaps to be expected. PWilkinson (talk) 01:04, 29 November 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) 02:03, 2 December 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) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. The information above seems accurate and a move to a different spelling, perhaps with a redirect, is the right course. JodyB talk 18:04, 20 December 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. Considering that those who want to keep the article do so only weakly...  Sandstein  09:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rawalpindi riots[edit]

2013 Rawalpindi riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newpaper. Originally PROD'ed with the reason that the event is too recent, and too much a part of the larger issue of sectarianism in Pakistan to determine whether this individual event will have any lasting significance on its own. The original author removed the PROD with the edit summary "this is not a normal case of sectarian tension, article will update in the days to come as mentioned already" but no significant updates appear to be forthcoming. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 26 November 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) 02:07, 2 December 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) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - yes it is too recent to evaulate if it had had any long term effect.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I understand the basis for this "weak keep" !vote. BabbaQ admits that the event is to recent to evaluate whether it will have any long term impact, which means that it does not qualify for inclusion under WP:NOTNEWS. So why keep it? (As an aside, the fact that there has been no update to the article since its first creation to show even any immediate impact suggests that long term impact is probably not forthcoming.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It also seems to be just "one riot" not riots. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A riot that results in 9 deaths is move than trivial, I know they're rather frequent, but that still doesn't make them trivial or individually unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title of the article suggests there were several riots in Rawalpindi this year, but apparently there was one riot on one particaular day. It's a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, this would be a minor item in a newspaper. The number of deaths is irrelevant, if no historical notability can be shown. No info has been brought forward showing relevant background or consequences, so it will remain a run-of-the-mill event. A paragraph about the incident has been added to Sectarian violence in Pakistan which is enough. Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources I can find are within two days of the event, making this fall squarely into WP:NOTNEWS territory. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 21 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Khalsa Sabha, Matunga[edit]

Gurudwara Khalsa Sabha, Matunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, does not appear to be a notable building or place of worship Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 November 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) 02:10, 2 December 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) 01:25, 9 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anisha Ambrose[edit]

Anisha Ambrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, as an actor with only one released role. May be likely to qualify eventually. (Should userfy to either original poster or current active editor.) Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 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) 02:11, 2 December 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) 01:25, 9 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akal n-Iguinawen[edit]

Akal n-Iguinawen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

one-line article not going anywhere. nn. at most a redirect, but to which article? someone else has concerns on the talkpage, too Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 26 November 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) 02:12, 2 December 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) 01:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minu Kurian[edit]

Minu Kurian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on living person, but has no references. The only references cited is a page with her photos, with no text. This article was already deleted (trough proposed deletions), but the author recreated it. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is poorly written the person is a well known actress in malayalam and tamil film industry. --കാർത്തുമ്പി (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 November 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) 02:13, 2 December 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) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author, User talk:Anjooraan has half a dozen notifications of copyright violation on their user page and has a discussion open on them at wp:ANI. As I'm the one that opened the ANI discussion (and nominated another of their articles for wp:Speedy about ten minutes ago, so I'm checking the rest of their articles and have just added evidence of plagiarism to another deletion discussion), my preference is for a delete without prejudice to be on the safe side - but this is on the merits of the case for just that reason as I've yet to find evidence this specific page was plagiarised and know absolutely nothing about Mayalam film. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:15, 11 December 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turiya Hanover[edit]

Turiya Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-notable person and lacks sources, it has been tagged as lacking sources and needing notability established for three years. Smeat75 (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 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) 02:14, 2 December 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) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Elections in Illinois. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student Election Judges[edit]

Student Election Judges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not actually an article about the not very notable concept, but rather a promotional article for a specific non-notable local program. If the subject is worth covering, it should be done over. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 November 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) 02:16, 2 December 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) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The concept is widely mentioned (search "student election judges" / "election judges" students / "student poll workers" / "student poll worker program"), and several of the sources cited in the article seem verifiable, but there does not seem to be enough written about the subject for independent notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This looks like a fairly reliable source for the existence of the general concept; better than those already cited, which seem to attest only to specific cases. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Hasirpad, if you're willing to rewrite, I'll withdraw the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I am a very poor writer and can only write on subjects that I am very well acquainted with—and even that at snail's pace, so that is unlikely. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Student Election Judges in Illinois, the topic actually covered. There appears to be enough to establish notability for such a program in that state, including a local TV news report. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in condensed form to a section of Elections in Illinois. This peculiar aspect of Illinois elections is hardly worth covering at length outside the context of the more general topic.  Sandstein  09:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Heitner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Darren Heitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Negative BLP, but sourced.(were it not sourced it would be a speedy deletion) The individual is of very borderline notability at best, and I would have nominated the article for deletion even without the negative material. I came across the article myself, there is no request from the subject that I know of. The previous versions of the article were (in my opinion very correctly) deleted as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 2 December 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) 01:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely marginal, borderline notability as per nom. Repeated removal of negative material suggests COI editing and intent to use page as promotional material. Given that fact, this should just be deleted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Fellowship String Quartet[edit]

Montgomery Fellowship String Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence this is independently notable from Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independently notable from Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra due to dramatically greater community involvement and public exposure. Antoinedse (talk) 03:27, 3 December 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) 01:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May be a case of WP:TOOSOON but the self-published sources (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh Symphony is self to this quartet) don't help establish notability. If they were even being reviewed by local press they would meet notability guidelines. They're not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyotaku[edit]

Kyotaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence that this album is notable. There is no article ja:虚鐸 and I can neither find this album nor any other album by Kokū Nishimura on Japanese Amazon or Yahoo Auction, which usually sell lots of used albums. Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 3 December 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) 01:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party coverage or any evidence of notability. Fails the basic notability criteria outlined at WP:NALBUMS. --DAJF (talk) 02:38, 9 December 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. 6 days ago, it was a SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer at Jordan–Hare[edit]

Prayer at Jordan–Hare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've come to question two majors factors of this article, being standard notability issues and if this particular game is warranted it's own article in general when compared with other game articles such as the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game or 1978 Gator Bowl. I am proclaiming a neutral stance in regards of any potential outcome. [citation needed] 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this game is up for deletion AGAIN! We just went through this a few weeks ago and the article received overwhelming support to keep it on Wikipedia. Is there a limit as to the number of times an article can be put up for deletion? Why must we have the same conversation again? Above all, why wouldn't we want as many articles as possible of reasonably notable events on Wikipedia if someone is willing to do the research, thoroughly cite all sources and compose a well-organized presentation in the article? We have Wikipedia articles on a fictional character Kelly Kapoor, the television series John from Cincinnati that ran for only one season and Joe Fishback who played quite sparingly for four seasons in the NFL. Why? Because someone cared enough to write about these barely notable items.

Several Hail Mary victories comparable to "The Prayer at Jordan-Hare" are listed on Wikipedia, for example Hail Flutie and The Miracle at Michigan, both of which were shorter passes than Auburn's game winner. It was being called the greatest play in Auburn history and the greatest play in the 2013 college football season until the following Auburn game against Alabama overshadowed it. It's a topic that will be frequently searched and will bring many Internet users to Wikipedia. Why delete it? User: superduperditor 03:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdupereditor (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect to Cardiff_University#Schools_and_colleges. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff School of Physics and Astronomy[edit]

Cardiff School of Physics and Astronomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual department within a university (not a first order subdivision--it is part of the College of Physical Sciences at Cardiff University). "School" in the sense of a constituent of a university can have various meanings, but this particular one is just the equivalent of a US academic department. Consistent results at AfD has been that very few such are considered notable here. I might personally want to change it, and accept them, but this has not previously been the consensus; and this instance is not world-famous enough to be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A worthy institution but, as nom says, Wikipedia usually does not have articles on constituent parts. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above (and fails GNG) - looking at the sources it does cite: the first is a mention of someone who works there; the second credits "Cardiff scientists" -- the only mention of this School is a quote from the department head; the third makes no mention of this (only Cardiff); the fourth is a list; the fifth is a paper written by someone who works there; the sixth is a list; the seventh mentions someone who works there and doesn't specify this School. Clear delete. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes this is a university department, but other "schools" of Cardiff University also have articles - Business, Law, Medicine, Music, etc. To merge it into a higher level "faculty" or "college" article is probably not useful, as the department is the basic level and the rest is higher levels of administrative structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cardiff_University#Schools_and_colleges. SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 19 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Curta[edit]

Florin Curta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject not notable and page lacks reliable sources. Upon research, subject seems to be a professor with an interest in medieval topics. He has authored a few books, but that is the closest to notability he comes. Whether that is notable enough or not is up for discussion Sesamehoneytart 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. GS h-index of 10 come close to passing WP:Prof#1 for a historian. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Xxanthippe's arguments. Jingiby (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Curta meets WP:PROF#C1 rather more easily than his h-index suggests. His academic specialism - the early medieval history and archeology of the Balkans and adjoining parts of central Europe - is small enough that citation rates for academic papers are almost certain to be low, and his reputation currently seems to rest primarily on two books - The Making of the Slavs and South-eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 - which have been strongly cited (particularly in relation to their innovative views on Slavic origins) by medieval historians, such as Patrick J. Geary, Christopher Wickham and Peter Heather, specialising in other areas but writing survey works that need to cover south-eastern Europe and/or the early Slavs. (They are also cited in quite a few Wikipedia articles, though that doesn't count towards notability.) PWilkinson (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Xxanthippe. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Three books published by British university presses indicates notability to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not unless they are cited (which they are marginally). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAPS Diet[edit]

GAPS Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources attesting to this subject's notability beyond a number of (good quality) skeptical blogs pointing out it's absurdity. Do we really need an article for every debunked biomedical idea, no mater how obscure it may be? Salimfadhley (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found some additional (sort of) reliable sources, such as Fox News Channel [29] and the Weston A. Price Foundation. [30] Admittedly, the latter is written by Campbell-McBride herself, but the Price Foundation does have its own Wikipedia article. It should be noted that if you find a source saying something positive about this diet, it probably won't be reliable simply because it is in all likelihood a quack website like Mercola.com (which products.mercola.com/gaps-diet/ [unreliable fringe source?] discusses it extensively]). But Joe Mercola is notable, so I think these sources demonstrate notability. Jinkinson talk to me 02:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now it seems to be an attack piece, so until there is sufficient notable coverage, I think it's better to delete the article. petrarchan47tc 02:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kegill has rewritten it to restore a balanced NPOV -- or there's an older version I was building consensus around suggested original NPOV version. I assume that with either of these two versions resolving the POV problem, you'd be happy to Keep?Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would sources need to be MEDRS compliant? petrarchan47tc 03:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked up sources & wrote the article, since my brother and others were discussing the diet as a notable trend -- and I was surprised to find that Wikipedia didn't have any reference to it. *When people look up a notable trend on Wikipedia, I believe they should be able to find a factual summary & information on the subject.* I disagree with the "skeptical" agenda sometimes pushed, that anything not agreeing with their POV should be deleted. As for notability: the GAPS diet is circulated in alternative health & autism circles. And 2 days ago, an article in the Daily Telegraph -- the UK's major conservative newspaper. [1] This is NOTABLE and, to be frank, I kind of object to having to defend it with notability _research_ (there are medical studies supported SCD) against what appear to be a skeptic's _assumptions_. No, I'm not a GAPS practitioner myself & have a math/science/ computer science background. Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been in the Telegraph a couple of times; but these are just mentions aren't they? There's not been any sort of in-depth treatment or analysis there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, Alexbrn; they were entire articles about this diet: [33] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, yes - that was the piece I'd seen - but it amounts to not much more than a paragraph asserting that the diet helps, followed by a child's food diary; there's no detail about the diet itself there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a whole day's food diary -- for a diet, that pretty much summarizes it! I don't know how much more to-the-point the Telegraph article could be. Ghee? Yes. Butter? Not so much. Butternut squash. Almond butter. Fermented cabbage. etc etc etc.
      • To suggest that a food diary doesn't describe a diet, seems confused & utterly illogical. What is a diet, other than a food diary to be followed daily? We seem to be reading the article with blinders on, looking for something else entirely.
      • And, according to the article "Michael and Helen have seen great improvements in Olivia’s health, behaviour and happiness.". Is it possible these parents may actually be competent & reliable sources, in regards of significant changes ("great improvements") in their own child's demeanour?Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well in this case the diet is not just something that's followed daily, is it? I changes over time, involves other activities (e.g. stool monitoring), and the use of supplements. So we wouldn't get a full/accurate picture from a food diary even it we made the (dangerous) assumption of assuming we could. The telegraph piece lacks any substantive discussion of the diet, and so does not really help establish its notability in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the factual & informative article I wrote appears to have been significantly vandalized by skeptics since I wrote it. Could we please compare the _original_ informative_ article to this horrible vandalized mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GAPS_Diet&oldid=554628502 I am unhappy about this vandalism. One Alexbrn appears to have been particularly active in editing this, and I would like moderator attention on this.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Twitmore.nz, from what I'm observing, there is a manic attempt on Wikipedia to remove or denigrate "alternative" or other-than-alopathic medicine. Unless some editors can defend against this activity, it's better not to have article. When I first saw it, it was three sentences - two were criticisms. After I removed the criticisms, the article was rebuilt so that it was (merely) 50% criticism. It's better to let readers find information about natural forms of healing outside of wiki, at this point. Past requests for moderator attention on this very activity has garnered no response, sorry to say. petrarchan47tc 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are zero hits on Pubmed when searching for "GAPS diet" or "Gut and Psychology Syndrome"; these are red flags about the extreme fringe nature of this diet. I should note that sites like Mercola and Weston A Price are fringe sites that are not the type of high quality sources we should be using to build an article around. If the only sites that discuss this extensively are fringe sites and skeptical blogs, this topic is not yet ready for including here. Local news sources/blogs are not by themselves enough to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is research into these diets on PubMed; kindly see the citations in my original version of the article. Note that GAPS is a trademark and trademarks are unlikely to be literally referenced in non-funded research. Your expectation about there being visible research on trademarked treatments, without there being tens of millions in pharmaceutical company funding & expectations of a billion-dollar profit, would appear to be seriously divorced from reality. Research is funded. Non-profitable treatments, no matter how very good they may be, don't get the development dollars -- and these days, only potential blockbusters get funded. Tropical diseases (for suffering Africans) are a prime example of this bias. See Neglected tropical disease research and development.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could only be notable for its fringe/quack nature, and though it has had some mainstream media attention even this is superficial, and not enough to establish notability. Maybe in years to come it will be back, but for now ... delete. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming that the article can remain balanced. How many of you who have voted either way have actually read the book? I'm guessing the answer is zero. I have (read most of it). I have cleaned up the article and provided scientific context regarding the growing linkage between the brain and the second brain (the gut). When I have a moment later today, I'll pull some of the research/citations out of the book. I also want to see if the claims she is alleged to have made … are actually made in the book. Why I have the book: in a 10 year period, I had periotonitis, a complete hysterectomy and a colon resection. My mother had irritable bowel syndrome. I have several friends with Crohn's disease. --Kegill (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the person concerned about PUBMED citations - it is rare for a practitioner not associated with a university to have the time/resources to devote to writing grants and doing publishable research. It doesn't make episodic ("physical-science-like") research any less important, particularly when the author cites other researchers. Some of the best work in women's health is being done by practitioners, not university researchers, who synthesize research to develop care protocols for their patients. They then have "anecdotes" about how that theoretical research plays out in real life. --Kegill (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of citations shows there is no coverage whatsoever of this diet in the medical literature. "Evidence" or "data" is not the plural of "anecdote". Yobol (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In many alt-med and fringe medicine cases the lack of mainstream research is often an indicator that a subject is not (or not yet) taken particularly seriously by the medical research community. In these cases Wikipedians should err on the side of caution and not avoid including such content. Wikipedia:Too soon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we have tons of alt med articles already; that this particular topic is so fringe that there is no mention in the journal literature is a huge red flag. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Merge with redirect into Specific Carbohydrate Diet that this diet is a variant of... Even with the few news hits don't provide enough meat to make a whole article, at least not yet. The SCD article will need close monitoring to ensure that the sourcing for biomedical claims meets WP:MEDRS, and reflects the views published in reliable sources in proportion to the emphasis found in those sources. Zad68 05:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable quackery. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is health related content; I searched and there is no discussion of this in articles indexed by pubmed. As per WP:MEDRS there are no reliable or notable sources upon which to base an article.Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 15 December 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.
  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10479250/The-GAPS-diet-can-it-help-with-autism.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_December_9&oldid=1142632565"