Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 October	18 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Farrokh Hormizd. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hormizd V[edit]

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

There are no sources that this guy is actually an historical figure. There was no Hormizd V living during that period. There is a confusion between Hormizd V and Hormizd VI. The real Hormizd V is actually Hormizd VI, who is the same person as Farrokh Hormizd and who lived during a different period. I suggest that this article should be deleted and i will rename Hormizd VI to Hormizd V and merge it with Farrokh Hormizd. Here is the source about it[1] (go to page 205). HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farrokh Hormizd. The nom's source seems authoritative and I can't find evidence of a claim that Hormizd V is anyone else. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you mean? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Hormizd V. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well sometimes there are competing claims, one historian may claim X is Y, another historian X is really Z. But don't see that here, the sources point to Farrokh Hormizd being Hormizd V without controversy. There is some ambiguity due to lack of evidence but that can be explained in the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is high time we end slavish reliance on a more than 100 year old encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 21 October 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) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Jauffret[edit]

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

The author hasn't really written any earth shattering works, ~~but more importantly~~ the author herself requested we delete the article. She seems unhappy about items in the article and the article itself. I see no reason not to honor that reasonable request Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my rationale a bit. The lack of notability for the books is more important than the author's desire to have the article removed. Though (and assuming this is the real Elle Jauffret) some consideration should be given to her request. As for the books themselves, they do not meet the criteria descried in NB mentioned by Eggishorn below.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and call for closure of this AfD "subject doesn't like the article" is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and even less valid as an argument for deletion. The subject is either notable or she isn't. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't address the fact the author isn't very notable. Your call for closure is ridiculous.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support While Orangemike has a point, preserving an article just to prove a point is a bad policy. The works mentioned do not apparently meet WP:NB (particularly the "non-trivia" part of the standard), so notability isn't really established. --Eggishorn (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are one or two sources, but nothing that would really show that Jauffret has really done anything that would merit an entry at this point in time. The sources are either primary or local, and I can find no other sources that discuss her at all. That the author herself is requesting the article's deletion is sort of an extra oomph to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per Orangemike. Subject apparently meets notability requirements and, judging by her online presence and promotional activity, can reasonably be described as a public figure. Her desire to control her public image is a rather bad reason to remove the article. I don't see that the account requesting removal has been verified as the article subject's or that any actual inaccuracies have been shown -- the only content that editor removed was a bibliography consistent with Amazon information. When you google the author's name, most of the top hits are self-published promo pages, hardly consistent with any desire for privacy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If most of the Google hits are self-promotional, how is this a notable author? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that someone explain how she meets notability requirements. I can't find anything beyond the two local sources for her. I don't see where her participating in a festival really pushes this towards notability guidelines either- the festival looks to be big, but not so overwhelmingly noteworthy that participation would give automatic notability. I can't find any in-depth coverage of her besides the two local sources already on the article, which makes me doubt that she passes notability guidelines or that her participation in the event was so overwhelmingly notable that she'd pass on that front either. I think that the term "she represented the Embassy of France" is a little misleading in that I don't think that she was the "face of France", but rather one of several or a large group of people that were attending the event in relation to France's Embassy and France itself. (Sort of along the lines of "if you're good enough and a native of France, you'll be said to be representing France at this event".) This is further confirmed by the fact that a search on the official KEF website brings up nothing when it comes to her name and a Google search brings up under 200 hits- most of which are junk or primary hits for her. For all we know, she could've been one of a few dozen or hundred people said to be "representing the Embassy of France", which is why we should confirm that any of her appearances are as notable as they claim to be before automatically claiming this to be a notable person and a bad faith nomination. I'm willing to change my vote, but I'd really like to see some confirmation and explanation about how she passes notability guidelines, backed up with a few more reliable sources that talk about her. I'm just not convinced she's all that notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two reliable secondary sources: La Jolla Light and The Gazette (Maryland). Both are "local author" profiles, we have always given these types of sources half measure at best since they are somewhat biased to give exposure to local authors, they are not truly independent. Furthermore this is not a well known or popular author, there are 0 books recorded on LibraryThing, 0 books in WorldCat. Finally there are no book reviews anywhere, which has always been the lowest bar entry for author notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It occurs to me that Ms. Jauffret may have (I assume completely innocently) stumbled on a way for a non-notable person to circumvent WP:GNG. 1:Create an article about yourself (probably as an IP), 2: Ask on WP:BLPN for the article to be removed using a registered account with your name, 3: Wait for editors to defend you against WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not saying that is what happened here, but as Green Cardamom shows, the only sources here are trivial. Is this a possible loophole in policy, I wonder? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm sometimes a little hesitant about automatically closing things when there's even a hint of potential non-notability. The problem is that sometimes you'll have nominations that might not seem kosher to some, but still brings up a valid point: that a subject is not notable enough to pass notability guidelines. I personally don't have a problem with AfDing this, given that there are serious doubts towards notability and the subject herself (supposedly) has requested its removal due to incorrect information. Something to take into account is that given that someone says that the article has incorrect info, we should automatically suspect any and everything in the article unless we can verify it completely. That's where local sources become more of a hindrance than a help: it's in their best interest to portray Jauffret positively, perhaps even report her word for word when she overemphasizes her impact in something. It's very common for a local paper to say that an author is "bestselling" when really they've only sold about 100 books on Amazon in a very specific category. That's why LS are so depreciated unless they're a source that's widely esteemed for their fact checking, and even then we should try to back it up with other RS that aren't local. I'm not trying to say that she's a liar or that she didn't participate in things, but that we should take the claims in the article and the local sources with a grain of salt unless we can verify it in non-local RS or at least a primary source that isn't Jauffret herself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of any desires of possibly the subject of this article, at the heart of the matter is that we have is a couple of community papers providing coverage. That's not sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on compassionate grounds. (Personal attack removed) Please give my regards to Miss Elle. Draco^E 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks. Beerest355 Talk 18:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Draco, I have never heard of Elle Jauffret I saw what is (probably her) complaint on the BLP board.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:06, 23 October 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 The Vampire Chronicles#Characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those Who Must Be Kept[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of The Vampire Chronicles 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) 20:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into The Vampire Chronicles. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The_Vampire_Chronicles#Characters or if anyone is up to it, create a page entitled List of characters in The Vampire Chronicles and merge it there. The main page looks long enough to where you could justify a page for the characters and I know that there are more characters than are mentioned on the main series' page. But as for a separate article? I don't really see where there is so much extensive coverage to where it merits its own article outside of the series page. There are one or two brief mentions in books like this one, but it's mostly in reference to how Rice has influenced other writers. Other than that it's mostly trivial mentions in relation to book reviews where the characters are mentioned but aren't the focus of any in-depth scrutiny. If I wasn't in midterm season I'd create it- perhaps if I have time later I will. It looks like it'd serve well as just a cut and paste job for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis, California[edit]

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

This article does not have any sources. A google search shows that none exist in google.books or articles that refer to "St Francis California". Standard reference books do not mention it. The last sentence is ridiculous, [, St. Francis still legally belongs to the Californian DelValle family and their many American descendants] demonstrating the author was not serious in the first place...he has a record of weird POV edits based on imaginary history (as in Charles Sumner and David S. Terry which have been quickly reversed) Category: verifiability (WP:V). Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced example of original research and tendentious POV pushing, translating the name of an historical Spanish land grant into English, which no one else has done, because the writer has some sort of grudge against a city of about 200,000 people. This must be removed from this encyclopedia promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect to Rancho San Francisco. Doing a name translation like this is just plain silly. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A POV content fork. I do not favor a redirect because "St. Francis, California" can just as readily apply to any number of other potential targets: Google Maps thinks it means a neighborhood of that name in Daly City [2], but it could also refer to the famous hotel in San Francisco, or for that matter to San Francisco itself, or to one of the many St. Francis schools by that name in the state, or the location of the former St. Francis Dam, or even the famous winery in Sonoma that doesn't have an article yet; and all of these, if we believe Google, are more likely targets for the search term than is this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Herd behavior. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry breaking in herding behavior[edit]

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

Article exactly duplicates content from Herd behavior, and isn't a big enough topic to deserve its own article separate from Herd behavior. nneonneo ^talk 18:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK of Herd behavior. -- 220.238.38.228 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested on the page itself. AfD is not for obvious mergers. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge, actually. All the content already exists at Herd behavior. The merge tag on the article was added at the same time as the AfD, but deletion (or perhaps just redirection) is clearly a better response. -- 101.119.15.171 (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Herd behavior. This is a largely redundant copy of a portion of the herd behavior of the article; only the reference given seems different. Thus the proposed merge (to resolve the reference) seems the best action. Redirect is OK, but it is a fairly unlikely search term. No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to dig up multiple in depth reliable sources and use them to write a substantially expanded article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to merge for that one reference, which now exists in Herd behavior in a more accurate form. -- 101.119.14.226 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PAC-eBook 1[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I prodded this a couple of weeks ago for lack of sources, and the article creator offered a "Why PAC eBOOK 1 is for you?" page from the manufacturer's website as a source when removing the prod. I can find no press coverage of this eBook device. McGeddon (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no good references in the article. One reference is the company website, the other doesn't even mention the particular device. I didn't find anything useful -- just a few blogs, social sites, and a couple of vendors.--Larry (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libnui[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Dimas Darmono[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS, cannot find any indication he has played in an FPL. Non-senior international appearances do not confer notability. Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 118.97.90.68 (talk) 08:42, 23 October 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--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Prosser[edit]

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

Non-notable distiller. Article is poorly sourced, the only real contender for a decent source is this local news piece that doesn't even refer to him by name. Can't find any other sources online that even give him a passing mention. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as re-created WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. I'm sure he's a good bloke, and good at his job, but notable he ain't. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local grogmaker. When an article describes in detail trivia such as schooling, family and recreation it is clearly struggling for credibility. No reliable, independent sources of significance. WWGB (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 22 October 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. Agree that this is pretty obviously a bad-faith tit-for-tat nomination, and a {{trout}} for the nominator accordingly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sackville House[edit]

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

Most of the references do not exist, or are to wikipedia articles. The ones that are real are not notable - one is a memo saying the house was removed from the National Registry, another is a list that simply has "Sackville House" with no explanation or context, and the last is a single newspaper article from more than 30 years ago which is about how the house is not notable enough to save from demolition. There does not seem to be any notable references at all in Google. This is simply local trivia. Otp15301 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Otp15301 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As this well-executed AfD is your first edit to WP, can you please tell us who this account is a sock of?--Oakshade (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The former NRHP listing indicates that documentation establishing notability exists, even if it is offline. As for demolition, notability is not temporary and it does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires "Significant Coverage," there is none. WP:NRV says The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest... This was of short-term interest decades ago according to secondary sources. WP:NTEMP says While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion... Now's that time. Please provide verifiable references and sources to support notability as defined by WP:N.

Short-term interest? The Federal government designated this a historic place. "Historic" is the antithesis of "short term interest."--Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NRHP (part of the National Park Service) has paper documentation on this site (they're slow to digitize removed properties), and the Observer-Reporter is not trivial coverage. Chris857 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe, is trivial, especially considering this edition of the paper is 33 years old. If the only source is this, it fails WP:N. It doesn't belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otp15301 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33 years old? Notability is not temporary. If it was notable then, that's enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. All NRHP properties (de-listed or not) are presumed notable due to the associated documentation, which combined with the local newspaper coverage is more than sufficient. Camerafiend (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 88,000 listings in the NRHP], only a subset of which are on Wikipedia. The only way the Sackville House is related to it is that it was delisted. It's not a badge of notability on its own in any way. There are no references in Google Books, and the mention on Google Search is for a house in the UK. Otp15301 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was de-listed because it was demolished. That doesn't make it any less notable; notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The presence/absence of articles for other NRHP sites is irrelevant and not indicative of notability. Camerafiend (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All HRHP require extensive documentation to exist. The Observer-Reporter has extensive coverage too. That some of the coverage is "page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe" is totally irrelevant to WP:GNG. It could be on page 117 next to a cupcake recipe and still be a reliable source that's sufficient to GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only item under WP:GNG this meets is Independent resource - there's one that's referenced. It is supposed to meet all of the guidelines, and it's not even close. Please do the work to meet the definition of WP:GNG. I think it's impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otp15301 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has very significant coverage from "Independent" reliable sources including the NRHP and the Observer-Reporter to establish meeting WP:GNG. Not sure what your point is as we're not sure why you nominated this except maybe to retaliate against a user below who created this article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So far beyond reasonableness (it passes WP:GNG several times over), this must be a !joke nomination.--GrapedApe (talk)
Given the nom's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'm beginning to think this is a troll. Also given that the nom is an SPA familiar with WP terminology and procedures, I think it's also an established user doing the trolling. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-referenced article about a property designated as a historic place by the federal government, a designation which requires a higher standard of notability than WP:GNG. I have a suspicion that this is in response to this AfD, where the article's creator and the IP who nominated this page had a difference of opinion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In order to even get a structure nominated for the NRHP, you must produce documentation quite like our reliably sourced reference requirements, and in enormous amounts. By definition, in order to be on the NRHP, sufficient referencing exists to show notability. Possibly the nominator is not aware that existence of references is the only requirement. They do not have to be on the article. As several other editors have stated, once something is notable, it stays that way. It is never not notable again. Even if it ceases to exist, its existence is still notable. This is a no brainer keep. Lincoln's dead, and all the first person accounts of his life are almost 150 years old. Does that make him any less notable? Nope, and it doesn't this house either. To the nominator: Please, when the government opens for business again, go look at any NRHP nomination document and then tell me sufficient sourcing does not exist. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thankfully, Pennsylvania's put most of its National Register nominations online, including the one for the Sackville House, so we don't have to depend on the federal budget for this house. You can see that you'll get relevant information from the nomination form, which was produced by locally reputable authors, and the fact that it gained national recognition means that historic preservation officials in Harrisburg and DC approved the work that the locals did. Meanwhile, note the top of the fourth page: there's additional relevant information in a book put out by MIT Press in 1969. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 18 October 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) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Fishburne[edit]

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

Non-notable, no encyclopedic sources. Draco^E 22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article looked like this before being pruned considerably by the nominator in case anybody wants context. Beerest355 Talk 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the article to the state just before the nomination. Effectively blanking the article before nominating it for deletion is not appropriate; !voters should be able to assess the quality of sources for themselves. Hqb (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you’re coming from, but restoring the article to its previous state does not address the issues. The sources are still sub-standard. How about trying to rewrite this article with actual sources? Draco^E 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Quite a bit of RS available. [3] [4] [5] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- accesshollywood.com, hollywoodreporter.com, and eonline.com are now considered encyclopedic sources? Please try harder. Draco^E 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unencyclopedic =/= unreliable. But, after mulling over it for a while, I think I'll go with a redirect as everyone else seems to have some better points. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this appears to be quite disruptive. The subject easily passes GNG: outside of sources already included in the article, more stuff is available online, eg. USA Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, People, ABC News. Cavarrone 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having reviewed Cavarrone's supposed listing of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that give Fishburne "significant coverage", I see a series of fails. The USA Today piece is a one-liner. Twelve words. That's not significant coverage. The Huffington Post's series of "NSFW photos", "went all-out" and "nearly nude" is not what we call a reliable source. Likewise a publication phrasing itself "The barely legal star said". And the People source is a barely warmed-over version of that same publicity-seeking press release. Thin stuff. More than thin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been called into question... the USA Today is not twelve words, probably you just read the summary, it is sufficent you click the link. I concede you Huffington Post's articles are quite gossipy. People source is far from being a press release, it is sufficent you read "Montana Fishburne, 18, tells PEOPLE..."; yes, it was reprised by many other sources, maybe some parts were later used in a press release (I have no idea which PR you refer), but that's quite different. And the ABC News article is so patently reliable you ignored it in your above analysis. The same with sources by Taylor Trescott, you ignored as well. Cavarrone 06:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Demiurge1000. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" in reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail – there simply isn't enough here in quantity or quality to write an encyclopedic biography. Andreas JN 466 03:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laurence Fishburne - no career or coverage of note, so fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited from a famous relative. None of the blogs and TMZ-style stuff would give a minor porn actress a shred of coverage if it wasn't for her father. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. The subject is not notable, she's merely notorious. There is no reliable material with which to create a bio that isn't almost completely negative and isn't sourced exclusively to tabloids. She merits a paragraph in her father's bio, nothing more. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So famous actor has an embarrassing child. Guess what you have all been an embarrassment to you've parents at one point or other in your lives. That doesn't meant that you are worthy of an article in an 'encyclopedia', maybe a paragraph in a gossip column, or the subject of talk by parents outside the school gates, or maybe even a mention in court report, but an encyclopedia entry nope. So kill it as per Tarky above. John lilburne (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage satisfying the GNG, persisting through the current day. Please note the update I just added to the article. Please note the expansion I just added to the article, noting that Ms Fishburne has become a prominent example of the erotica industry's failure to deliver the benefits so often touted in the initial bursts of its publicity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the GNG with multiple reliable sources about her. Does not fall under BLP1E since coverage goes beyond one event (sex tape). Coverage persisted years after the video Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 26 October 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) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Robert Andrew Johnson[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Founder of an investment fund of no apparent note, and a minor local politician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A version of this article has been maintained for several years at User:Edwardmillerwiki/DominicJohnson where it has been managed by various accounts, most recently the new WP:SPA which submitted this article. A previous submission into article mainspace as Dominic R. A. Johnson was speedy-deleted in Feb 2011. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't clear whether this is the same Dominic Johnson who unsuccessfully contested Derbyshire North East in 2005, but without or without that, his position as a local councillor does not demonstrate that he is "a prominent figure in British politics", nor meet WP:POLITICIAN. That leaves the question of notability to his business career: several primary pieces are included in the External Links, but I am not finding anything that amounts to in-depth coverage of the subject. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NN: I think the notability of a company needs to be established before its CEO can be notable. Getting articles into the press is not notable either. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There were issues with accessibility for the previous page kept by user EdwardMiller thus I created this new page - partly because the user which created it had their name before the subject of the piece. I did try to delete the old page but to no avail so any advice here would be most useful. With regards to the notability of Dominic Johnson he is the CEO of one of the fastest growing asset management companies in the UK but also on the board of the New City Intiative and Treasurer for the Conservative Party. Surely we should a) Be supporting entrepreneurship, which this individual embodies, and b) support the growth of small companies, especially within financial services which is so dominated by behemoths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvpars (talk • contribs) — Lvpars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ -- This is a good point with regards to evidence though - a page should be created for Somerset Capital Management LLP if it is not already in existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvpars (talk • contribs)
- One !vote per user, please. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If he is prominent enough to have a profile in the Financial Times surely he is prominent enough to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicerule (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Alicerule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment He is a contributor to FT, and so has likely posted a profile of himself there. That is not the same as FT profiling a prominent figure in the financial industry. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7dc6d5d8-d279-11e2-aac2-00144feab7de.html#axzz2iejB8RXb Alicerule —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 24 October 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. Consensus is clear that this sort of intersection is not something that should belong here —SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 October in India[edit]

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

This kind of calendar articles is usually deleted on Wikipedia, since the only common thing between these events is a coincidence, and doesn't contribute any historical knowledge (unlike year)by-year articles, where you get a historical timeline). It's telling that we don't have any other "17 October in" articles (nor at first glance for any of the other articles). Fram (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated (and so tagged) are the other 37 articles in Category:Days of the year in India. Fram (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and the category too. The Main Page may have "On this day..." as a feature, but that doesn't make "On this day" articles any more than a trivial intersection of dates and events. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-standard organizational scheme. The problem is that every event that has ever happened in India falls into one of 365 days. Thus these articles would grow to be unusable in length, they are too indiscriminate. A curated list is fine, such as on the front page, but we don't create curated list articles, since that would be POV, unless there is a NPOV rule of what to include or exclude, but no way to do that here. I think what is trying to be achieved can be done automatically using Wikidata, though Wikidata is not developed enough yet, it will be soon enough. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles are curated, as we are always deciding what verifiable facts to include or not based on our own editorial judgment. For lists that have no finite and defined group, inclusion criteria is up to editors to determine. We then may use Template:Dynamic list. Many such "curated" lists are featured lists (e.g., List of 1920s jazz standards, Timeline of the London Underground). postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They are the result of one editor's (abandoned) effort with no project or other organized support. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 09:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My first reaction was to agree with the nom without reservation, but we do have October 17...and every other date. Whether it makes sense to further split by country is another question, but there is at least established practice for listing events throughout history that coincidentally share a date. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this discussion here established a consensus to merge these. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the merge was never done should we just delete them? The amount of merge work here is considerable. At what point to do we call it a day (heh). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete The reasons listed here for deletion sound invalid. wikipedia do have pages with calendar articles with above mentioned reasons eg:) October 17 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics), October 17, 2004, October 17. There is no other valid reasons have been mentioned in the discussion which critize only these pages. These pages are simply followed rules from Wikipedia:DOY within country limits with national notablity. some of the reasons like single editor articles, no organized supports will be rectified if it is needed to sustain. Thanks for bringing this to attention --Neechalkaran (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and category. The Wikipedia:DOY project is committed to tending to 365 articles, one for each day of the year, and not a zillion "October 10 in xyz" articles. Using Neechalkaran's logic, we can also have "October 10 in football", "October 10 in literature", etc. etc. etc. It makes sense to keep all the information for a particular date in a single article about that date and not fragment the information across "date in category" articles. There's no policy based support for inclusion of articles like this, especially facing the clear consensus to keep and tend to the general DOY pages. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and category. As mentioned above, having calendar dates intersected with a country would be both unmanageable and unneccessary - there is an article for every day of the year, so information which is regarded as important/relevant can be included on those pages. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exact Holding[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only references are either primary, press releases, directory entries or normal company announcements. Google searches not finding anything different. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, now has sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_Holding. —Ruud 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep assuming that the refs from the Dutch article meet RS, that they're significant coverage of the company, and that they're added to the article. Our job is not to look at the article to determine notability but rather to determine if the subject is notable and then make requests of editors to delete or improve the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs heavy editing, but I assure you this is one of the largest software companies in the Netherlands. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded with sources found at nlwiki that hopefully establish notability (mentions in a major newspaper and the high-profile business computing magazine/website Computable). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very very old software, been around for half the time the software industry has been in existence. Clearly passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 19:53 24 October 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12088 Macalintal[edit]

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

This is a clear-cut example of an astronomical object that fails the criteria of Notability (astronomical objects). That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant. The notability guideline clearly states: "If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article." Notability is not inherited from the naming procedures for an object. Often, small rocks in space are named in honor of a person. This does not make the rock notable as an object of scientific interest. However, the namesake may be notable. If Jeric Macalintal had a WP article, I would suggest merging this information into his article rather than nominating for AfD. However, Macalintal has no page, and even a basic search reveals he has no basis for notability himself. This object has no substantial coverage that would allow the building of an article beyond stub-class. Thus, the AfD nomination for this article. AstroCog (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate place in List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Per WP:NASTRO, this asteroid wouldn't be notable even if its namesake were notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Egsan Bacon. No suitable sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000, which perhaps could have bene WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant. would be correct if that was just it, and not picked up by sources. But this naming (and thus the asteroid) are covered in multiple RS (e.g. [6], [7] (go to the end of the article to see Macalintal cited). As such this object has a better-than-standard claim to notability, and being covered in news sources passes our general notability guideline. --cyclopia^speak! 13:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't support the notability of this space rock. Firstly, they aren't even about 12088 Macalintal or Jeric Macalintal, they're about 6636 Kintanar being named for Roman Kintanar. 12088 Macalintal is only mentioned once, in the context of "Other space rocks have been named after Filipinos, too!" Per the GNG, "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a passing mention", and this is just a passing mention.

Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). WP:NASTRO specifically covers how to deal with space rocks whose only claim to notablility is being named after someone: If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article. (Formatting in the original) Even reports specifically about 12088 Macalintal being named after Jeric Macalintal would only be useful for estabilishing notability for Jeric Macalintal, not the space rock. (Although it appears that Jeric Macalintal would fall under WP:BLP1E anyway.)

Thirdly, the two sources provided aren't two sources at all. They're one source that appears to have been slightly modified the second time. Both are credited as having been written by Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson. (Additionally, since the byline on the first is "Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson are honorary members of the Astronomical League of the Philippines", I'm not sure if this wouldn't qualify as a press release, especially given: Kintanar joins a growing constellation of minor planets that have been named after Filipinos. It began in 1995, when the IAU named asteroid 6282 Edwelda in honor of the writers of this article. That's the phrasing from the first, but it appears in the second also. But even if it does count as independent, that wouldn't solve all the other issues with it as a source for this space rock.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable - Absolutely, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the asteroid has been quoted in sources because of the naming. But it's not inheritance, it's the sources directly covering that. I concede the two sources are equivalent, but I guess we're missing also the Filipino-language sources. Tip of the iceberg. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few links. Neutral about this AfD. Wifione ^Message 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—Appreciate the effort, but Wifione's additional references are 1 rehash of the same article that has already been sourced under two other URLs in the article and the remainder are "star map" type listings of zillions of asteroids. The latter references would be useful as additional sources for proof of existence, if the notability requirements had been met, which they have not, per the sound argument of AstroCog and Egsan Bacon. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:22, 25 October 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 per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved In![edit]

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

I can't quite work out what this is supposed to be about but I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. The table title says its about iCarly season 5 but the article title is wrong and non of the episodes match the actual iCarly season 5 article. I can't find any reference to a show called Moved In or any of the listed actors. No reference to it shows up on the guest stars imdb entries. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a made-up (hoax) TV show, created by a Swedish Nickelodeon fan, with guest appearances by all the page creator's favourite actors. Can't find any evidence of notability or existence. The actors listed as the main cast don't seem to be well known/real professionals either, and I can't find evidence of other credits for the writer "Hole Maincast". --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As either a hoax or a made-up show that the author created without the same malicious intent as a true hoax. Either way, it's not real. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. All attempts to verify this show fail as Colapeninsula states. 7.7 million U.S. viewers and not a trace found outside the Wikipedia article? Yeah right! • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 18 October 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. Wifione ^Message 17:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Donovan Mansfield[edit]

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

The article is only sourced with primary references and I can't find any reliable independent sources to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nothing found by me except a little New Age babble. Not enough for WP:GNG. No hope of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and all I can find of her in a Google news archive search is that she writes letters to local newspapers (so she also doesn't pass WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS – all the references are pointers to defunct web pages. Agricola44 (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a notable person, despite all the titles she spins around herself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 02:52, 23 October 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. G11: pure promotion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyBusTickets[edit]

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

I think that this article is far too wp:promotional. There is a claim to notability ("world’s first bus ticketing booking platform"), but it is totally unsourced. So, I'm putting it to discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:PROMOTIONAL --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - I'm almost in a mind to place the {{db-promo}} myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Krzysztof Kopczyński. Wifione ^Message 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Media[edit]

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

I voted weak keep two years ago. Maybe I am becoming more of a deletionist, but visiting this today makes me agree that as it is, it fails WP:CORP. I am not seeing any reliable coverage of this business entity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge this stub to Krzysztof Kopczyński where this production company is already spoken of in context to its filmmaker/founder. Allow undeletion or recreation when a meeting of WP:CORP is more certain through offered usage of multiple Polish-language media sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Piotrus. Joe R (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to C standard library. Merged contents already Wifione ^Message 16:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BSD libc[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:NSOFT: no reliable third-party sources have been given that explain what is special enough about "the BSD C library" (which isn't really a single product) to warrant a separate article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C standard library, from which it was unnecessarily forked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to C standard library due to lack of multiple independent sources per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There are articles on other implementations, just need sources to pass WP:NSOFT. Until then it should be merged. Widefox; talk 11:33, 19 October 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. Wifione ^Message 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content audit[edit]

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

The subject seems important, but the page is based on mostly unreliable sources, blogs, personal pages, company sites, etc. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an important topic and deserves a Wikipedia page to gather together one place for encyclopedic and current thought in the professional field. Halvorson's book covers content audit in one chapter, and she's a recognized leader in the field. The other cites are from blogs and professional websites; I don't think that lessens their value. I wrote its "sister page" on content inventory a 3.5 years ago, and its stood the test of time and revisions. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should've added: What other cites could I add to make the article better? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is your best bet for scholarly and reliable content. Here are the search results for "content audit" that I found. More can be found on Google Scholar (see link above). I did give some thought to how to handle this article before nominating it for AFD. One idea was to delete all the unreliable sources, but that would have left a skeleton of an article. I had a similar experience in a deletion discussion a few years ago, in which the subject was good but the sources weren't, so I took that as my example for what to do with this one. I hope you can find better sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I looked at Content inventory and see that you used a lot of the same personal pages, blogs, company websites, etc. for that one. I guess the reason I got involved was because I reviewed your nomination for Did You Know?, which is pretty strict about Wikipedia guidelines. May I also suggest that you replace the unreliable sources on that page with more reliable content? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. Content audit is a known term in the website management community. Wikipedia policy states that blog posts from established experts in their fields published by reliable third-party sources may be acceptable. No books have been written completely on "Content audits" that I know of; but I think there is one in the works by a recognized expert in the field, who writes his own blog, speaks publicly, and tweets. There is the one cite I used by Halvorson from her book in the article. Another blog post I used is from Annie Cushing; her work as an expert is noted here at SearchEngineLand[8]. Two other cites I use are by Nick Kellet, the co-founder of Listly[9]. I tried to limit myself to cites from recognized experts like these, either in blog posts or from online articles, such as from uxmag.com.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another cite in the content audit article is by Hilary Marsh, a recognized expert in the field. She is Chief Content and Digital Strategist of Content Company[10] and speaker at 2013 Content Strategy event[11].-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another cite in the content audit article is by Rick Allen, co-founder of Meet Content[12]. Mr. Allen has been a featured speaker at Gilbane Conference 2013[13] and also Confab 2013[14]. Here's an interview that Vertical Measures did with him in 2010[15].-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you are quoting experts in the field. My concern is that you are quoting their blogs or other pages that are not considered reliable sources. Please read WP:SELFPUBLISH. As the guideline states, If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. The goal is to quote information from secondary sources, not these expert's webpages or blogs. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Cirrus Editor. As long as CE is sourcing the article to experts in the field, I don't care where these experts give their expert opinions. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can throw a rock and hit any number of Wikipedia articles with a miserable set of refs. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_archiving. Here you'll say this doesn't matter in this particular case, because we're talking about the article on Content Audit. OK. I have said the experts are experts in their fields, but you don't seem to be accepting that. OK. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."[16] I don't know what you want from me. I am starting the article on Content Audit. Let me rephrase that: I would like to start the article on Content Audit on Wikipedia. Content Audit is a legitimate term in the web management profession. Do you want me to withdraw this article from the DYK? Do you want me to ask you to delete the article? What would satisfy you? I have selected the best citations I can find from a group of recognized experts in the field to collect into an encyclopedic article so that the entire world might benefit from this shared knowledge. Want to delete the article? Delete the article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be belligerent; I guess I'm just not making my point clearly enough. You are right – most articles on Wikipedia are not properly sourced. But when you nominate something for DYK, it does have to meet a stricter set of rules. That's what led to this AFD.

If I were to write an article on content audit, which is a well-known practice, I would go straight to Google Books, Google Scholar, and webpages that talk about the subject, and pull information from there. You do not need to find whole books on the subject; even a passing reference in a chapter or paragraph will do. Maybe, if a piece of information was missing, I would quote the blog of an established expert – but I would not base the entire page on blogs, personal pages, and promotional company websites. That is just asking for someone, somewhere down the line, to either tag the article for faulty sourcing or to remove the sources altogether. As this AFD is generating very little interest, the article will probably stand. I humbly suggest that you replace the current sourcing with citations from books and articles that discuss the subject (Halverson's chapter certainly qualifies), rather than promote it. Sincerely, Yoninah (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time just now to do what you suggest, which is a great suggestion. Thank you much for that. Can it stay in limbo in DYK status while I work on that? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nominated the article within the 5-day time frame mandated by DYK, I guess you could work on the article for up to 7 or 10 days after the AFD closes. An administrator might ping your talk page to remind you to finish it up. We could also put a note on the DYK nomination page to say that you are working on it. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, the very first ref is from a chapter in a book. Another book with a whole chapter on "content audits" is noted in the "Further reading" section. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. And what about the rest of the refs? Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through the article and re-cite where I can. I can't promise a time-frame, though. It would be best if I had a weekend. Life is getting busier these days. So if you can lift the AFD so that I have at least a window with a weekend in it, that would help me. Also, Yoninah, can you update your note at the DYK nom text so that editors know I'll be working on the cite fixes and NOT remove it from DYK nom? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you have time. The AFD discussion will close 7 (or more) days after it's opened, which is tomorrow at the earliest. Then I'll update the DYK nomination page and make a note that you're working on improving the refs. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I'm not trying to be belligerent and I know you're only trying to improve the article, but, having read WP:DELETE, I don't see any of the 14 deletion reasons listed as applying to this article. That the citations here need to be improved is not a valid reason to delete. Where am I going wrong? You yourself satisfied reason #7 with your link to a GoogleBooks search showing there are literally dozens of books that at least mention "content audit". --96.231.113.61 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sourceable per WP:BEFORE. Let CE have a chance to find better sources. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 22 October 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. WP:SNOW and G10 - while some of these records might be worthy of mention, grouping them like this, especially under this title, is blatantly an attack page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of career underachievements by Ana Ivanovic[edit]

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

I find it hard to believe this article was created. A career underachievement article? Not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presentation fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. Frankly, a case could be made that this should be a G10 speedy deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written this is an attack page subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G10. While it's theoretically possible that some bit of the sourced content could be repurposed in a neutral way for use at Ana Ivanovic, that article already covers her career in extensive detail so that is unnecessary, and this article's title would not be an acceptable redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous article that in its very essence violates NPOV. Frankly, the creator should take a step back and reflect on the nature and purpose of an encyclopedia before adding more of this nonsense. --Wolbo (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Inherently and obviously POV. If a professional athlete's not really all that great at their sport, a neutral presentation of their career would be sufficient for demonstrating that. There's no reason to create something like this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous article, clearly an attack page. Dream Focus 01:39, 18 October 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. Wifione ^Message 16:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College Football on CBS results[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE (the results of those specific CF games that have been broadcast by CBS, are not separately notable as a group). Fails also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Fram (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There's nothing encyclopedicly appropriate at all here. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Errrrrgh, another one of these. No sources and even then, nobody outside of sports TV nuts cares about where a game is broadcast, just that it airs on TV somewhere; a CBS logo doesn't make it special. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now it's just a list, and a poorly conceived one at that. It could become a really awesome article rather than just a list of scores if an enthusiastic editor would research details of the subject. Alas, I'm not that enthusiastic. But I'd support anyone making such a change. As it stands, I think Wikipedia would be better off without this list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:29, 18 October 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. Wifione ^Message 16:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maldini Pali[edit]

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

PROD tag removed with no rationale; PROD reason was "failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:13, 18 October 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. Per BIODEL Wifione ^Message 16:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorota Malek[edit]

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

I am not seeing much notability - fails WP:ARTIST. External links range from niche/unreliable to totally unacceptable (Facebook). If anyone wants to keep it, please explain clearly which of her achievements support our notability criteria. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 October 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. Wifione ^Message 16:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School of Fashion and Design London[edit]

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

No real indication of notability beyond its own website. One mention in the Guardian, cited in the article. 0 results in Google News, no relevant results on Google Books, no results on the website of the London College of Contemporary Arts, of which it supposedly a part.

Article created by a blocked sockpuppet whose speciality was "tag teaming and promotional editing behaviour at London School of Business and Finance", another affiliate of the LCCA. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per related investigations over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neri Karra. Didn't see any evidence of this institution's notability Mabalu (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective merge to London College of Contemporary Arts~~ Changing vote as per PWilkinson below, and after some consideration. Definitely a merge. I am not sure it has sufficent notability to stand separately from the parent college. Mabalu (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it appears to have existed before becoming part of the London College of Contemporary Arts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see some evidence of this - simply existing in itself without receiving sufficient attention doesn't sound terribly notable. Mabalu (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Now totally convinced my original reaction was correct. Mabalu (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge to London College of Contemporary Arts The nominator may have found no results on the website of the London College of Contemporary Arts, but I certainly found a page for the School there. However, I am seeing nothing that demonstrates independent notability - so a redirect as a search term and a mention there should probably suffice. PWilkinson (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding institutions are generally held to be notable. Clearly has a separate existence from its "parent" college, which is merely an umbrella body. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to defer to the opinion of others here. A couple of questions though, just to be clear on what we are talking about: do we not consider this page on the website of the agglomeration of schools of which this thing is a part to be "its own website"? And what is the evidence that it awards degrees? I see that it offers a course leading to an MSc Fashion, Design & Luxury Management; but that the degree is awarded by the Grenoble Graduate School of Business. I don't see any other evidence of degree-awarding on the site of the school. I tried this search in the hope of finding the list of degree-awarding institutions supposedly previously maintained by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the National Archive seems to be the National Fail, and just yields an error message. Does anyone know if that list is still maintained, and if so, where? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself, I found this list. The School of Fashion and Design is not on it; nor, as far as I can see, is the London College of Contemporary Arts. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am very suspicious as to both the subject of this discussion and LCCA. For the moment the best solution will be a selective merge to LCCA. I note that LCCA has an org.uk, not an ac.uk web address (which is unusual for a reputable institution). Before I could acknowledge notability, I would want to see that there are a significnat number of students studying fulltime. Are we sure that this is not one of the proliferation of so-called colleges that were purporting to offer courses, but were actually a front to get people around UK immigration control, enabling them to work here without studying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

Or indeed some other variety of diploma mill. At the risk of boring everyone, I reiterate that this article was created by blocked user:Chernenkaya, whose area of interest was the London School of Business and Finance, with which the LCCA is associated, and which is also notable for its apparent absence from the HEDD list I cited above. I'd be grateful for clarification, perhaps from Necrothesp or someone equally well-informed, on whether an institution needs to award its own degrees to be automatically notable by our standards. According to our articles here, neither the LSBF nor the LCCA does so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 4 October 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) 03:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not satisfied that this exists as a separate institution and there is a lack of RS establishing either status or the claims made that it offers undergraduate and postgraduate study in the sense we would understand it. It may, of course, be properly associated with another accredited institution, but I am puzzled at the absence of any clear statement to that effect on the school's website. Unless I have missed something neither this nor the London College of Contemporary Arts is listed on the UK Border Agency list of approved sponsors nor are they listed as subscribing institutions of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. That need not be conclusive if a convincing alternative accreditation exists, but as pointed out it also fails the HEDD datacheck. Those are very clear official warnings to prospective students, and I suggest WP editors as well. --AJHingston (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. On the LCCA, I for one am fully convinced by the reasoning of AJHingston, following on the doubts expressed by Peterkingiron above. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London College of Contemporary Arts. I also remain convinced, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that School of Fashion and Design London should be a delete in preference to a merge. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussuion above, a merge seems to be a reasonable way out of this dilemma. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an infomercial, not an encyclopedia Article. If the subject is notable, we can always write a new Article from scratch, after deleting the ad. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I was about to close it as no consensus, but the last votes tend to delete, so let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is the coverage in independent, reliable sources? One article in Guardian in which an employee speaks on a fashion, and is only one of several different interviewees, does not cut it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not convinced that the sources exist which discuss this as an independent body. Given the somewhat questionable notability of the LCCA itself, an article on a single department or unit doesn't really cut the mustard I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 17 October 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. Wifione ^Message 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Werner[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep not a lot of college players are given six seasons of eligibility due to injury. Looks like that's starting to pull some coverage and is enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any references that establish notability. Any coverage received is routine for a Big Ten football player that did not accomplish anything of note during his career. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. Wifione ^Message 15:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studying in the Modern World[edit]

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

Google News Archive search yields no WP:RS whatsoever for this non-notable two-part film or mini-series. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After six years if reliable sources cannot be found it is unlikely that they will be. If the discussion winds up as save I would suggest that the two pictures be removed as they are generic pics of libraries and don;t seem to have anything to do with the documentary. MarnetteD | Talk 04:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect title to the notable and prolific Iranian filmmaker Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. As English sources seem unavailable, per WP:CSB we can allow undeletion or recreation when Iranian or other non-English sources come forward speaking about this work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no sources show notability, nor support the essential outline presented in the article. N2e (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brian Haw. I've merged the relevant contents to the said article too. Wifione ^Message 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Called Brian[edit]

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

While the term "A man called Brian" does crop up in a Google News Archive and web search, none that I can see are associated with this non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. There are in fact already sources enough in this article, which is enough reason on its own to keep this article. More seriously, we have an enormous problem of systemic bias on anything related to Iran. See the many reasons given on the previous mass nominations of Iranian film articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Land, Five Nations, and the nomination of this film under its earlier title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A man called Brian (nominated, incidentally, by an editor now banned for sockpuppetry). --NSH001 (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference that even claims to be an independent secondary WP:RS is the first one, and as it's dead there's no way way of knowing what it actually was. So I'd say there are no sources that do what you claim. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because links have gone dead. It is not true, as you claim, that "The only reference that even claims to be an independent secondary WP:RS is the first one". The AZFF is undoubtedly independent, but its site only appears to have details of the current festival (2013), so another dead link. But probably the organizers, or a library, or some keen film-goer will have something, and chances are it will have been reviewed somewhere. The fajr film festival site currently appears to be inaccessible, but beware of making the assumption that because it's in Iran it's not independent. Systemic bias again. --NSH001 (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film festival descriptions are not independent secondary WP:RS. If you program a film, you must at minimum offer a description, coupled at times with in-house interviews, etc. These are WP:PRIMARY and do not in themselves do much to establish notability, especially if they are relatively minor festivals, as they are here. And of course WP:NOTFILM#Other_evidence_of_notability only kicks in for the festival selection if it's been five years after initial release. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A systemic bias is always a concern, but as this film was about an English activist and protester and was screened in the West, it becomes less about an unfortunate bias against Iranian topics and more about how small budget independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage as do their major-studio big-budgeted highly-touted blockbuster-film brethren. I think it makes sense that this documentary may be spoken of in the article on Brian Haw and this title be redirected to and also mentioned in filmmaker Mahmoud Shoolizadeh's article. We do not expect such films to have the same level of notability or sourcability as might Star Wars or Indiana Jones. And we can allow undeletion or recreation once this finds just a touch more coverage (likely in books on British activism) or if later meets WP:OEN by being screened in a retrospective OR if the Iranian sources now inaccessible become accessible again. I think we can WP:AGF that they existed and were accessible when this article was authored. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not have snapshots of these Iranian sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brian Haw. His protest was notable; indeed the law had to be changed to put an end to the protest, if I remember correctly. However, that does not make a film about him separately notable. Nevertheless, there may be some content that can usefully be included in the bio-article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But do please watch the movie. Wifione ^Message 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon's Blood Diamond[edit]

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

A Google news archive search for this term yields precisely zero results. Not a notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable amateur short film. No doubt a fun watch but notability is zilch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 18 October 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. Will recreate if someone gets useful information within these articles. Deleting all. Wifione ^Message 15:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran men's national under-19 volleyball team[edit]

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

Not notable, we don't have such a page for other countries and also there is no useful info in these articles. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Here we had discussions about youth/junior templates. The result was delete. We are not using U20, not U19 neither U23 or anything else in volleyball articles. We have just a few of these, like Peru women's youth volleyball team and I do not recommend creating any new one. Links in this articles about volleyball players, might mustly stay red forever. Just a few of them will ever reach Notability. Osplace 03:06, 19 October 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.