Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 September	29 September >

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb: Ride Again[edit]

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

Too short and should be merged with another article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseinphilly (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is actually the average size of a video game/television show tie-in article. Nothing wrong with the article as-is. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Too short" is not a valid reason for deletion, unless all sources for said article had been tapped (which they absolutely have not in this case). Please provide a merge target if that is what you are recommending, though from the looks of the article I see no reason to support a merge either. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close since the OP is calling for a merge it should be handled at the talkpage of the article not here.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 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#A1. Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molly SophieTV[edit]

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

An article about a YouTube channel with no references. Upon searching YouTube, I discovered that the channel had only 4 videos and 3 subscribers, with less than 100 total views. Also, the page creator is in breach of WP:COI, as it says on their user page that they are involved with Molly Sophie TV. Videomaniac29 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability as web content or as a biographical article. Original author removed speedy delete tag. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 September 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) 02:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atavus[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional species. Tagged for reference improvement for going on three years but that improvement can never happen because sources that establish the independent notability of the species do not exist. Expired PROD removed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content into an article Species of Earth: Final Conflict, along with:

Atavus

Jaridian (Currently under PROD)

Taelon (Currently under PROD)

Taelon Commonality

Some of the content could be transwiki'd into http://earthfinalconflict.wikia.com/ if anyone can be bothered. Zangar (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the same lack of individual notability and absence of reliable sources would also apply to the hypothetical list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 2 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) 02:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taelon Commonality[edit]

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

Also nominated: Da'an (Earth: Final Conflict) Quo'on Zo'or

Non-notable fictional concept along with three non-notable members of the alien species. Neiter the concept nor the species nor the individual members of the species have independent reliable sources that establish notability. All rely entirely on primary, in-universe sources and amount to little more than character biographies and speculation. Expired PRODs removed, which in my opinion should obligate the removing editor to improve the articles on the spot. Except that can't be done here because there are no sources to support them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some content into an article Species of Earth: Final Conflict, along with:

Atavus

Kimera (fictional species)

Jaridian (Currently under PROD)

Taelon (Currently under PROD)

Some of the content could be transwiki'd into http://earthfinalconflict.wikia.com/ if anyone can be bothered. Zangar (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the same lack of notability and reliable sourcing that plague the individual articles would also make the hypothetical list untenable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumumoto[edit]

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

Article asserts that 'Kumūmōto or “Kitsui Etsuraku” is a lesser-known practice of increasing sexual intensity', the mastering of which involves an intense regime of tutelage involving Kumūmōto Masters (monks), apparently known as K-Masters. Unfortunately this article seems to be the only mention of this practice that I can find *anywhere* online, which I think takes this article beyond just notability issues and places it firmly in the hoax area. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. "Kitsui etsuraku" may be Japanese (though searches of Japanese sites find no indication that this is a term itself), but "Kumūmōto" is not Japanese (it doesn't even fit the syllabary). It's a made up word. Michitaro (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly looks like a hoax. Zangar (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 and tagged as such. Appears to be a hoax. No results outside of Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bollocks (and other bits...), but not blatant enough for me to speedy it. The arcane nature of it is usually a clue to hoax - but some little-known things are simply little-known (and usually non-notable as a result...). That's a nice Catch 22 for the hoaxer. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 29 September 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) 02:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alessah[edit]

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

Prod declined by author. Non-notable e-book, self-published. No WP:RS references. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BKCRIT.--Bisswajit (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no independant reference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 2 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) 02:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Patton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC) JMHamo (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure about Liam Patton, but, the rest should stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a valid reason why you feel they should not be deleted? JMHamo (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 20:20, 3 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Theory of Justice: The Musical![edit]

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

Current lack of notability. Subject of the article is a musical (currently lacking any guideline of its own, but WP:Notability (film) is instructive) lacking in any typical route to distinguish it from many others: no run at a famous theatre, no notable cast members or producers/directors/lyricists/musicians, no famous awards, for example. Reliant on future success to grant notability, in my opinion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from the nominator: I'd like to confirm that I have found no further sources beyond those in the article. Most instructive are, I think, WP:N: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." and WP:FILM "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides." (The Oxford Journal link is broken, just to note.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Disclosure: I am a friend of some of the cast/writers, but that's just what brought me to the article; I wouldn't say I have any special interest in the article staying up.) It received significantly more attention from non-student sources than your average student production (at least one review by a practicing philosopher; attention from relatives of the real Rawls and Nozick, nomination for an award at the Fringe). To my mind that chimes with the general principle "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" from the guidelines linked. D aniel (‽) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's no SNG, the applicable guideline is WP:GNG. This article was passed out of AfC space after debate. Multiple locations in addition to having other criterion that push it beyond the GNG threshold. Hasteur (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments Obviously nominator is unfamiliar with GNG or reading. If that were the case they would have noted that the play itself has transcended the "single event or topic" threshold. Hasteur (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for a discussion at AfC, but I'm not used to where to find one, and couldn't. Could you point me to it?
I am familiar with the GNG, thanks Hasteur, but for the reasons given believe the coverage does not mean that guideline.FILM and EVENT are useful in my opinion in understanding the sort of sources build towards the GNG. The Edinburgh Fringe features 2,695 shows each year, of which 1,200 have played somewhere else. The original performance was at a venue associated with many student productions in Oxford and the two student publications (the Cherwell and Oxford Student) may not be entirely independent of the subject. Other sources include interviews from the members of the musical, sources from the Edinburgh Fringe itself, and others which are exactly the sort of thing envisaged by FILM's "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a SNG, we default to GNG. It is patently obvious to those who are not pre-disposed that the article does pass GNG. You may find the discussion about the article when it was still in the AfC incubator in the history of the page. As I said when I reviewed the page, if we could get a data point seperate from the Oxford/Theater comunity, that would be enough for an AGF on notability. Given the subject matter and the method in which this content is presented, I think the there is a valid argument for the article and it's subject to be given a pass on Wikipedia's notability rules. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by a "pre-disposition", I have no other reason for thinking that the article should be deleted other than I think it fails notability. I'm confused by your reference to good faith; WP:AGF mentions nothing about notability (and I do not doubt for a second the good faith of the creators or you or anyone else). I suppose good faith on notability might be assuming that sources not used in the article exist elsewhere, but I think the article lists all sources available. Certainly in relation to the point in contention, the musical has only played in Oxford and on the Fringe.
Anyway, if you would take the Fringe to be a secondary site suitable of granting upon the musical enough sources capable of sustaining it as against the GNG, then I would not: the Fringe is open to anyone who can find a venue and pay the bill. Describing the musical at this stage as a "touring production" seems to push the oridnary meaning of the term. It's not like, for example, the musical playing in Manchester or Leeds at a theatre, like the Bullets and Daffodils example mentioned at AfC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per points made above, it clearly passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this passes WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not have been staged at a famous theatre, but it has at a famous festival - the Edinburgh Fringe. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Clearly passes GNG. Neljack (talk) 07:51, 4 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) 02:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Carey (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in the past.. WP:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as standard non-notable footballer. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 30 September 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) 02:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exiled Theatre[edit]

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

Not notable. Only references are shops/vanity publishers and own website. Clockworkcreep (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any reliable sources which wuold indicate this to have been a notable theatre company. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 September 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, Wifione ^Message 19:04, 28 September 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) 02:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost episode[edit]

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

This does not appear to be at all a notable term. The article is basically a WP:DICDEF, except with also WP:OR, and there has been no source I could that even talks about it in depth. The phrase may be used in a lot of shows, but that's no excuse to have an article about it on Wikipedia. 和DITOR E tails 19:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just did a search on the Factiva database, and found 1400 articles discussing "Lost Episodes"...so definitely worthy of a page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. As I said, "The phrase may be used in a lot of shows [and news sources], but that's no excuse to have an article about it on Wikipedia." 和DITOREtails 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, theWP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument only applies where the various mentions are "just the mere presence of the searched-for term". This is not the case here. In this case, there are many articles, of the 1400, that discuss the lost episodes in depth. The article aren't just passing references to "lost episodes"...the centred on discussing the lost episodes. Additionally, there are 600,000 hits of the term on Google (though some of these refer to the Program "Lost").IN fact, there is a page that just talks about *Dr Who* lost episodes here Doctor Who missing episodes - which would imply that certainly a page that discusses them generally is warranted, particularly if there are 1400 articles discussing them.
Delete - this article seems to be plain original research as there don't seem to be any sources available which cover this topic in depth. Simone 07:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a dictionary definition followed by a bunch of examples. I don't see that it can transcend this. I see no sources covering lost episode as a concept. I'll also note that many results are referring to episodes of Lost, the TV series. Simply saying there are lots of sources without an examination of the sources is useless. If such sources are as abundant as claimed, then it should be an easy matter to pick out 2 or 3 good sources and present them here. I could find no such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 3 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Gore[edit]

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

I'm having difficulty with this probable autobiography. The media mentions exist, yes, but they seem to verify the existence of the books, not in any particular manner the notability of the author, who seems to have created this article as a vehicle for self promotion. I considered CSD as spam but, in view of the particular nature of Indian media coverage, chose the AfD route for a full discussion and consensus.

The gentleman seems to be on the border of notability, but on the wrong side. I view this article as ~~an article variant of WP:NOTYET~~WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:GNG. It should be deleted without prejudice to future re-creation once he is genuinely notable. I will not suggest userfication since the creating editor appears to be the gentleman concerned (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for WP:TOOSOON. Yes? Stalwart111 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I am grateful to my learned friend, and have made the correction. Fiddle Faddle 10:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the usual difficulties of finding sources for Indian authors (see WP:INDAFD "Books") this author by comparison has many sources and would pass WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple reviews. There are also biographical sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep There seem to be sufficient reviews for notability as an actor, cunsidering the cultural bias of finding mater, as GreenC explains above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 September 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) 04:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second Green Cardamom. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 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, Wifione ^Message 19:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharlin Class Warcruiser[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Babylon 5 through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or as a last resort, merge to List of Babylon 5 starships along with all those other entries in the Babylon 5 template. I'm going to use the f-word here, so close your eyes if you're easily offended: fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We did make a List of locations in Babylon 5 a few years back. Doing the same thing to the majority of the ship articles is something I proposed as far back as 2009. Anyone want to help merge 'em? Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two independent reliable sources (printed works in my possession that I've used to source B5 fictional topics before) that establish that this class of ship, as a fictional element, was commented upon by real world sources. More can be added as needed, but I'm putting the vote in now that I've demonstrated that adequate sources exist and can be added as needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do they actually discuss anything pertaining to the real world, or is it just a collection of fictional details in a detailed format? If they can satisfy the real world information requirement, I can at least withdraw this for now so that a proper merge can be discussed on how to best handle the details without going overboard with plot like in these articles. TTN (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They discuss the fictional elements in the context of the larger story, but as you can tell from the book titles, the books are focused on Babylon 5 itself. These and other books discuss the real-world inspiration for B5, and reaction to it, but are substantially descriptive, with analysis a smaller portion of their content. I don't know if that satisfies your definition of real world impact or not, but it certainly does mine. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they cannot produce a real world perspective on the topic, it becomes impossible to to meet either WP:WAF or WP:NOTPLOT. If the resources do not give details on the respective fictional elements that can meet those, they cannot be said to actually cover them. Such novels are only covering the series itself, of which the plot elements are only a part, and cannot be said to establish notability for them, else every single element from every single fictional series with a guidebook is notable. If they can provide a general discussion of the overall design process of creating all the ships, there could be potential in a list article. If they don't give a ship-by-ship account, there is no way separate articles can be kept according to WAF and NOTPLOT barring one or two randomly having actual sources available. TTN (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't actually expect that meeting the GNG--non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources--would be enough to persuade you to withdraw this. Suffice it to say that I find your additional, non-policy-based requirements uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Last time I checked, NOT is a policy, and it specifically says to follow WAF for fiction-related articles. If the articles can only be summaries, they cannot exist independently of the main work. Maybe you feel every last fictional element of every series deserves coverage, but the policy-based argument is that they cannot exist without real world coverage, not simply trivial mentions in a few books that are reliable sources in other aspects. In the same sense, would you say a few news stories about a notable football player buying his mother a house makes it reasonable to create an article on the otherwise unnoteworthy mother? The story is technically covering the mother even though she only warrants coverage in the player's biography. TTN (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Your example is inapt on a couple of fronts: BLPs are not the same as fictional elements, and real world events that have context in relation to other real-world events are not the same as fictional elements, which may evolve over time as more fictional content is created, but are essentially static within the fictional universe--Han shot first notwithstanding. Having said that, were such an article on a non-notable event made, the plain expectation of WP:ATD is to merge it into an appropriate article, such as the football player's. Finally, a policy cannot incorporate by reference a content guideline, because a content guideline does not have the established status that a policy does. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you missed the point there. When you have a minor topic, real or fictional, it cannot stand without the appropriate weight. You can toss around "reliable sources", but the article clearly needs to be removed if it cannot act as its own topic. That which you have provided is the exact same as a couple of mentions of an unimportant family member of a notable figure in a few news stories. NOT lists WAF as a resource, and it is currently a stable version. That means it, a policy, supports my viewpoint much more than yours. TTN (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It can and does' act as its own topic. Most fictional elements articles do so. They exist within the context of the fictional world, and make reference to it, because if all the notable fictional elements were crammed into one topic, it would be large, unwieldy, and likely violate WP:SIZE, your personal opinions about whether that is a good thing notwithstanding. WP:SS describes how such topics should be broken out at some length. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That makes absolutely no sense, and you should be able to tell that is not a common practice by looking at any well-managed series of articles. There is nothing that says we have to document each and every detail, so properly done lists are never overcrowded. The only ones that need to be split are those with so many entries that it would not be possible to have a small article even if they were down to a sentence per entry (Marvel character, Pokemon, ect). Describing fictional elements without real world relevance is to allow people to better understand the plot summaries without overcrowding them. That requires a balance between brevity and detail to best describe a topic without giving them too much WP:WEIGHT. Characters and elements do not need eight paragraphs of background info, but a basic conveyance of "what makes the character the character" and "what importance the element has to the plot." TTN (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The interpretation of NOT with respect to fixction is much disputed, to the extent that there has never been able to get any single interpretation of it adopted, as for any position, there are always substantial objections. I interpret it, and I think the intended meaning, is that our coverage of any work of fiction should not be limited only to plot. Obviously, for major fiction where we need to split articles to deal with the amount of material, some of these will necessarily deal mainly or wholly with their role in the plot, as other of the detailed articles will deal with other aspects. It's the coverage as a whole that counts. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you're an inclusionist, but do you really have to try and act as if the policies, guidelines, and general consensus on fiction-related articles are not against these types of articles? It is quite obvious given all the trends that plot only articles cannot stay. Only low traffic areas and those with focused groups of fans have actually kept these kinds of articles around. All the more active ones have paired them down to the most prevalent information and improved the rest. The guidelines and policies are not set in stone, but NOT, WAF, guidelines of various projects, and such are all quite clear on the topic as of this point. TTN (talk) 15:37, 19 September 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) 04:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jclemens has added multiple independent sources for the article. I agree with DGG that WP:NOT#PLOT is contentious and has been for a long time. I interpret the policy as saying that the article should not be mostly devoted to the plot and that is true of this article. Plot does not include characterization, setting, language, criticsm, etc. Even were the article plot-heavy, given reliable sources, reducing over-emphasis on plot would be a matter of editing or possibly merging and would be a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, a policy that specifically recommends against deletion if possible. --Mark viking (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is fundamentally incorrect. Plot does include characterization, setting and language (among others), that is called Exposition. Criticism is not plot, but I see no criticism in the article, as the only things the sources provide are plot summaries which merely happen to trivially mention the topic. There is no exploitable encyclopedic information that would allow the article to go beyond a plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The major fictional elements of major fictions are best treated in separate articles, to keep the material from getting lost. The sources seem now sufficient to justify it. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note: I struck the second !vote--you only get one per discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 02:27, 23 September 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, Wifione ^Message 18:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted again? Only one person agreed with the nominator, and that !vote predates the addition of independent reliable sources, vs. three who have evaluated the sources and agreed that they were sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems reasonable, and on par with similiar articles Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonable" is not a policy-based argument, nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, the article fails to establish the topic's notability per WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage (and not trivial mentions) from reliable independent sources". The new sources added to the article sure are reliable and independent, but do not go beyond short, trivial mentions of the topic within plot summaries and do not provide significant coverage based on out-of-universe information such as origin, development, influence or reception, without which it is impossible to build an encyclopedic article that goes beyond a mere plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT. Some of the keep !votes are entirely based on a rejection of the WP:NOTPLOT policy and as such should be discarded, per WP:AFDFORMAT, AfD isn't the place to debate policy but to check whether articles meet policy or not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:25, 4 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 A7. The article was speedily deleted from Wikipedia by the admin RHaworth (talk · contribs) at 20:02, September 28, 2013. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mj daily life[edit]

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

no content Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see no assertion of notability for this web content. I'm not finding any reliable source coverage in searches. This can be tagged A7. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 - I have tagged the article accordingly. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 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) 02:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Tarfi[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. His appearance for Anderlecht is not confirmed by reliable sources. The concern about an unverified appearance is no longer relevant as it is no longer mentioned in the article. The rest of the concern remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his one Cup appearance for Zulte-Waregem does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL as it was against an amateur side, and he clearly fails WP:GNG - non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without a doubt fails WP:GNG. He did make a Cup appearance for Zulte-Waregem, but it was against a Third Tier side so he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 30 September 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 Shanda. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ez Station[edit]

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

Article is still too short and has not been edited for four years. Eye snore (pc) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are reasons to delete. But the article fails to assert notability, which gets into the realm of speedy-deletion. Needs minimal commentary and ref about why it's a notable product; just becoming a long description is not enough. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - no valid reason given for deletion. ~KvnG 23:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comment "fails to assert notability" is a policy-based reason. Just because the nom that started us is invalid doesn't mean the resulting discussion can't progress (for example, if someone procedurally closes it, I would immediately re-file with this new nom, and we'd just all have wasted our time). DMacks (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your comment, it blends in with the other bureaucratic notes. Whoever closes this AfD might also miss your "vote".

Articles that do not assert their notability (e.g. through references) are not automatically eligible for deletion. Editors who advocate for deletion should research notability of the topic WP:BEFORE nominating or supporting an AfD. Realize that from my POV, quickly dismissing this ill-formed AfD saves time and if you chose to refile, that would be wasting time. ~KvnG 02:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly correct - if the nominator doesn't provide a policy-based rationale, but someone else does afterwards, that second person effectively becomes the nominator. In this case, your "procedural keep" !vote is invalidated by DMacks citing WP:NOT. (In case you don't think I know what I'm talking about, I just NAC-ed an AfD using SK#1.) And look, my time was wasted explaining this. Ansh6 6 6 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shanda. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Odie. I see some coverage in GNews search, but majority is of the press release/product announcement type. If someone can find a good source (like Ez Mini), it can be remade. Ansh6 6 6 01:16, 1 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) 02:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kasum[edit]

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

Many sources by Kasum but very little about Kasum per WP:GNG. Books do not pass WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR. Created by WP:SPA. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. Working on the basis that a professor emeritus is, in principle, notable, I checked out the three references that are supposed to bear out said claim. Neither of the references that link to the University of South Florida website confirm that he is professor emeritus there: in fact, they don't even mention him. The third inline reference is clearly an unreliable source. --Technopat (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking an earlier date[1] there is an entry for "Dennis Kasum" (relation?). The "Campus Directory" from 2009[2], the source used in the article though now offline but restored via Wayback Machine, does not have his name. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My search was only for the surname (as experience tells me that some people use initials instead of first names or vice versa, etc.), which is why I didn't find it. On the other hand, in the link you provide, the person in question, whether or not a relative, is described as "Adjunct Instructor" which is hardly the same as "emeritus professor". --Technopat (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that emeritus implies notability. It basically means only that the subject is retired and not disgraced. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the term "professor emeritus" and using it as a stepping stone from which to check possible notability. In any case, "Adjunct Instructor" – by itself – doesn't qualify.--Technopat (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "professor emeritus" is not a title of intrinsic notability, no more than "professor" is. See WP:PROF for criteria by which a professor may become notable; retiring is not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The novel The Last Truth by Dennis Michael Kasum was published in 2001 without any ISBN, probably self-published. Since then it has had no mention in the media—the book disappeared from sight as soon as it was released. Searching for either Dennis or Michael Kasum I have found nothing to support the notion that Kasum is notable. He has not won awards, not been recognized by the public, nothing. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I attempted to sort through which sources were *about* him and which merely *by* him, and found only a faculty roster that could charitably be described as independent and usable as a source. I also found nothing about him in Google news archive. So there's no evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails just about every possible criterion, including WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. --Technopat (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabba (band)[edit]

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

Looked at last AfD and the "sources" don't meet today's standards for notability. AllMusic entry is simply a track listing. impactpress.com review is not a professional review. In short, it doesn't seem to contain any RSes and a Google search is hampered by the common term for the dance form. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Never mind two bad sources, what about the substantial article from Mojo and other coverage from CMJ, Melody Maker, etc. and the BBC radio appearances that were identified in the first AfD, and other coverage (e.g. SPIN, Heraldo, Soitu) that wasn't? --Michig (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment*Indeed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantive reference from Mojo, and others - http://web.archive.org/web/20010619075359/http://www.gabba.co.uk/temp/MOJO.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 October 2013
Keep. Meets WP:BAND through independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. — sparklism ^hey! 07:20, 3 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) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new black[edit]

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

A dictionary definition, extended etymology, and numerous examples of the phrase being used or imitated (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH), such as might be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. No discussion of the phrase as discussed in secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother of all for a parallel situation that has resulted in deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Includes history, significance, and references. --Arcadian (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes For a word or phrase, "history" = "etymology", which I addressed. I wasn't citing the article for a lack of references— but verifiability isn't the issue. I'm 100% satisfied that the phrase exists and is used! I think that having articles for phrases that haven't already been the subject of discussion (as opposed to being used) in reliable sources opens a can of worms, where "can of worms" is a perfect illustration. Phrases like "can of worms", "moths to a flame", "cart before the horse", etc., seem more like dictionary material than encyclopedia material. In my opinion, anyway! I'm curious to see what others have to say. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge (to either snowclone or phrasal template). –Quiddity (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH. This page is little more than a collection of examples attempting to prove the subject's veracity. It is certainly a known expression, but the page does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a wiktionary entry. Rehman 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wiktionary is not some kind of wastebasket for unwanted Wikipedia content. If there are notable, verifiable, encyclopedic things to be said about a word or phrase, as with Thou or Final Solution, then keep the article. If there is no such encyclopedic potential, then delete it. Don't use the existence or non-existence of a Wiktionary entry as an argument for or against deleting Wikipedia articles. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF or Redirect to Snowclone where it is explained adequately. It is just a dictionary definition that does not require an encyclopaedia entry. — O'Dea (talk) 07:30, 5 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. per WP:SNOW. When even the nominator changes their !vote to Keep, then a different outcome is highly unlikely. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kick-Heart[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and it lacks any references. Videomaniac29 (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's a Production I.G film directed by Masaaki Yuasa that has aired on Cartoon Network/Adult Swim's Toonami block along with being screened at the Fantasia Festival (and numerous other major festivals), is vying for an Annie Award and an Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film after having already won several festival awards[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], and received a massive amount of donations on Kickstarter [11].--MoonMetropolis (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is notable, then suitable references should be added to show its notability. Videomaniac29 (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is only two days old, and is clearly a work in progress. Also, please follow WP:BEFORE in the future, if you do intend to nominate newly made articles for deletion. This film clearly meets notability guidelines and despite being rather stubby, has great prospects for improvement. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added quite a bit of sourcing to the article. It's not as much as say, Iron Man 3, but it's enough to show that this short film has received enough coverage to merit an article. Even if it doesn't get any of the other awards it's trying for, this is enough for the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has been widely covered in North American news sources that cover anime, and sources have been added to the article. Also, I just want to mention that when I click the "news" link from this AFD I get very different results than when I search in Google News myself without using the link, apparently because the link from the AFD is set to search "archives" (i.e., only older news stories) while the news stories covering this are recent. That might be a deficiency in how the "news" link for the AFD is set up. Calathan (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having searched Google News, it seems that its notability is obvious. Videomaniac29 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 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) 02:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exablock[edit]

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

It's a typeface. There is no evidence of it being notable, either in the article, or in a Google search, other than it happens to be used in part of the Disney XD logo (which is an unreferenced claim, by the way). The article is unreferenced, and Google turns up a whole bunch of blogs and design sites; nothing reliable. The article is also an orphan (or needs more linking). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even if a source was found for it being part of the Disney XD logo, that alone wouldn't make it notable. A Google search turned up no evidence of notability, but it did turn up this, which refers to Exablock as "7,623rd most popular font family of 24,025 families." The 7,623rd most popular font? I don't think we need quite that many articles on fonts. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Ratushniak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this on behalf of one of the primary editors of the page (User:Karendawes), who has been requesting speedy deletions as the main editor of the page. Myself and another editor declined it due to there being some edits (mostly minor) by other users as well as the article surviving an AfD about a year ago. That makes deletion through WP:G7 a little murky, as it sort of ceases to be something she created herself. Rather than have her nominate it again, I thought that it would be better if it got another deletion discussion. There are some assertions to notability here, but I'm not sure where his medal would rank on WP:FIGURE/N. I have no true opinion on this, but I thought that since the editor in question seems to want it deleted I would run it through AfD. I'm slightly hesitant about this since it did pass a previous AfD, but this would probably be a better route to go than to repeatedly decline speedies. This way if it's decided to keep based upon notability standards, it can be pulled from at various angles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The notability issues have recently been concerning me. Notability came from his appearance on Dancing on Ice and hopes of a return appearance did not come to fruition. Hence his notability has declined. His recent work is low level tv production and there is very little to add to or develop this page as a result. --54.216.210.176 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedural speedy keep, even. Notability is not temporary, if the previous AFD resulted in a clear keep then I understand the courtesy to the user who wants this deleted but it's a keep again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I withdraw my request to delete at the request of the subject of the article. Karendawes (talk) 17:59, 5 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) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koro Kepa[edit]

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

Doesn't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOLDIER doesn't come anywhere close to being a policy. The nomination fails to consider the alternatives to deletion preferred by our actual editing policy such as merger into Māori Battalion. Warden (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is the de facto standard for soldiers. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a policy. The guy wasn't even the last surviving Maori, just the last from a subgroup. What next, Joe Schmo, the last surviving Sicilian-American in the 101st? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Warden, you've been told before, many times, that WP:PRESERVE is part of the editing policy and is not part of deletion policy, and the status of WP:SOLDIER has been explained to you as well. Please stop ignoring the concerns people have with your keep !voting in discussions like this. Continued citing of WP:ALPHABETSOUP that is not relevant to deletion becomes disruptive after a certain point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails not just WP:SOLDIER, but WP:NPERSON too, not to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misses the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG. Really, the only coverage I could find was that he had died, so WP:NOTMEMORIAL likely applies as well. EricSerge (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the Stuff.co, New Zealand Herald and 3News websites, and the article used as a reference was the only mention of Mr Kepa I could find. Given that this is more a news story than a full obituary, I don't think that notability is established here. It's sad to see that only a handful of veterans who served with the 28th Maori Battalion remain alive. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete' - Below all criteria above - SimonLyall (talk) 01:09, 29 September 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) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blakk Soul[edit]

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

I declined a speedy on this since the claims about working with notable musicians and touring with them asserts *just* enough notability to where it wouldn't be a clean speedy. I couldn't find anything to really show any true notability to where he'd merit an article, so I'm nominating it here in case there are any sources I missed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a runthrough of the sources for the original editor, since they've been edited somewhat. I'd like to stress that notability is not inherited by working with notable persons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rundown of sources

[12] This is not only a blog source, but it's such WP:TRIVIAL coverage that even if it wasn't, it couldn't give notability.
[13] This is a merchant source and as such cannot give notability. It's actually fairly inappropriate to use merchant links as sources in an article, as their sole purpose is to sell you something.
[14] Same issue here.
[15] This is a primary source, which cannot show notability. Having a contract with a company isn't automatically grounds for notability, as you have to release multiple albums with a major record label to pass WP:MUSBIO.
[16] This is a merchant source, which cannot show notability. It does prove that he's collaborated with a notable person, but that in and of itself doesn't give notability. It might make it more likely the artist will receive coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Sometimes in rare circumstances you can have someone that has an extremely large amount of affiliates or collaborations that they'll have a page to list them all, but it's fairly rare since it has to pass WP:LIST. List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates is one of those rare examples.
[17] AllMusic database listing. It isn't a review, so at most it can be a trivial source.
[18] Another iTunes merchant source.
[19] This is a primary source, as it's by the person he collaborated with. See above for why this can't give notability.
[20] Another merchant source.

Delete Per nomination. MrScorch6200 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any significant coverage. There doesn't seem to be justification for an encyclopedia article at this time. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSBIO.--Bisswajit (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by Orangemike as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wagstaff[edit]

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

Non notable autobio too soon. See also PROD for Angus Butterfield and BHS Butterfield. --Green Cardamom (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7) A school student with no evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 September 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) 02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Kanpur (Lok Sabha constituency)[edit]

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

South Kanpur (Lok Sabha constituency) is another unremarkable Page and there is not any Lok Sabha constituency named South Kanpur. Currently it is comes under Kanpur (Lok Sabha constituency). In this page creator mention that "South Kanpur Lok Sabha Constituencey will be finalized when it will become a district in 2014." I want to tell administrator that Lok Sabha seat would be increase in 2026 according to India constitution. currently 543 Lok Sabha constituency in India and it will steady till 2026.--Prateek Malviya (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 13:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two year old hoax/activism article that has unfortunately been mirrored elsewhere. There has been a move/request to create a district but it hasn't received any official favor. Unfortunately Wikipedia seems to have been used in this activism! Kudos to the nominator for finding this hidden gem! —SpacemanSpiff 19:00, 1 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 Incubate. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnect (2013 film)[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria for films documented at WP:NOTFILM. Additionally, the only sources are the official website and IMDB. N^oformation ^Talk 06:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one blog/news source that show that a rough draft was screened last year ([21]) but I can't find much else out there. If someone wants to userfy this then I have no true issue with that, but this just doesn't seem to be notable from what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate until we actually have confirmed release and more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:45, 3 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Immortality[edit]

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

This article is about a concept developed by Alexander Bolonkin since 1991. Bolonkin himself might be notable for various reasons (he's done a lot). However I can't verify this particular concept is notable on its own. The sourcing is mostly primary (self-published, interviews, articles by Bolonkin) including searching *.ru -- the "in widely press" section lists some sources but I can't verify some of the publications ever existed .. there's a newspaper interestingly named "Interesting Newspaper" and one to-the-point named "News". Bolkin currently has a Kickstarter Project active on this topic with a few days remaining. It might be WP:FRINGE as well. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is the exact same article material as was deleted here 8 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_immortality (a copy of the text is here: [22]). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Merge some of it with Digital Immortality and then delete it. Both describe the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardAnufriev (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 September 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) 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Kanpur district[edit]

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

I am nominating this for deletion because -

South Kanpur district does not any district in Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, look here.
It is only a region in Kanpur city and region page already on Wikipedia see South Kanpur.

so this is unremarkable page.--Prateek Malviya (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two year old hoax/activism article that has unfortunately been mirrored elsewhere. There has been a move/request to create a district but it hasn't received any official favor. Unfortunately Wikipedia seems to have been used in this activism! Kudos to the nominator for finding this hidden gem! (copied rationale from the other South Kanpur AfD)—SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 1 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) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Molina[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate meaningful notability. All of the sources were written by the subject and most of them don't even cover the subject. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found sources for national awards, one of which was written up by Reuters. Fleshed out article and wikified it some. Needs more work but notability seems clear. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given the findings from user AuthorAuthor, I'm changing my vote to weak keep. Dominique does appear to have some notability in the tax planning space. The original deletion nomination stated that all of the sources were written by the subject. This is simply not true. CitizenNeutral (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only new sourcing about Molina is #6 and #7, which are awards. The sources only mention Molina in passing and I don't think they meet the standards for GNG. The other sources now in the article are instances of CNN, et al. publishing Molina's work, but not covering Molina. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times [23] and Chicago Tribune [24] pieces appear to have been written by Molina: one is prefaced by a little biography of her, and the other names her on the byline —rybec 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Chicago Tribune article has no byline but the author intro makes it clear that the article is by Molina. And in any case, it isn't about Molina. The NY Times article is also written by Molina and isn't about her tax work either. The rest of the sourcing is just articles quoting Molina in articles about tax. What is missing is significant coverage about Molina. It's not in the article, nor was I able to find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pre lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a second CNN Money interview of the subject and included it, plus a nomination for a national award (National Association of Women Business Owners), and news coverage for appearances on TV shows in St. Louis, New Orleans and San Diego during tax season. She also sits on a university board of directors. I added those to the page and copyedited. There appears to be significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The sources, as CitizenNeutral pointed out, were not written by the subject. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chicago Tribune and NY Times noted above are written by Molina. I cannot find a second CNN money interview in the references you added. Of the references that you did add, none of them establish notability. Her socialmediatoday profile is a self-published source. This item just quotes her. Being brought in to talk about taxes like this, this and this don't establish notability. Nor do press releases about awards. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added the missing CNN Money citation. I found a third CNN Money article in which Molina was quoted, which I also added. I also found a CBS Los Angeles article and TV footage where they called Molina the "Dear Abby of Finances," interviewed her for 5 minutes and mentioned her book. Quotes from a variety of news outlets and multi TV appearances add up to substantial coverage and establish notability, IMHO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see anything of substance there to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:30, 26 September 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) 04:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Failure to establish notability, as documented amply above Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:56, 1 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Cummins[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable. She has promoted the work of others, and received some minor pats on the back for it, but so far as I can see, nothing rising to the level of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ as attack page per WP:BLP. Also little notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment – The attacks appear to have been the work of one edit by an IP address user, so I removed them to fix the BLP issue. ~~I have no significant opinion on the article subject's notability.~~ Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per Green Cardamom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Children learn from this website and because Emily did NOT invent the solar fridge but still took the money & credit for it, this article should be deleted. It encourages fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.108.128 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "speedy delete" was made by the same IP who altered the page with comments challenging Emily’s claim, which also prompted Xxanthippe's Speedy Delete vote above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. The subject has been profiled in sources for winning recognitions by bodies including a jury of Nobel winners in Oslo. She has long biographic piece in The Guardian, BBC Radio 4, The Telegraph, The Independent, BBC News, Daily Mail, Telegraph & Argus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into the references they are no so impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. My nomination was not premised on the post-vandalism statements, but on the effort to build minor recognition into encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, for GNG purposes the sources are top-shelf - national/international audience, significant coverage. bd2412, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing cleanup, I am proposing deletion. I don't believe that the achievements described in the sources add up to notability. They are, by and large, puff pieces. bd2412 T 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what a "puff piece" is - they are not press releases if that's what you mean - but I do know that WP:GNG says: a person is notable when they receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and she has at least 7 in-depth articles from the world's best sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The multiple awards suggest notability. The place to dispute accuracy is on the talk page not by an AFD nomination. I wopuld however be happier if the awards had their own articles. There seem to be 1000s of awards and it is not easy to see which imply notability without. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are too feeble to give notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 20 September 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) 04:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The sources cited in the article are numerous, reliable and coverage is significant. This is what constitutes notability. "Feebleness", "puff" or "non-impressiveness" doesn't factor into it. ~KvnG 14:26, 1 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges[edit]

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

Non notable, content fork MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, content and sources

The information in the lead of this article is not supported by the references given except for the name of the institution being present and linked to on the National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions which does not qualify as a reliable source or third party source. One reference points to the NCAAM page "Naturopathy: An Introduction" there is zero mention of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) on this web page. Another reference points to Department of Education page "Accreditation in the United States: Specialized Accrediting Agencies" again zero mention of the AANMC.

The list of accredited schools is referenced by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) website which does list the accredited schools but says nothing about the AANMC or any of these schools being members. The second source for this is a map from the AANMC's own website a primary, interested, non reliable source.

The material under the list (without a section heading) is referenced by a link to the FAQ page on the AANMC's website clearly not an independent, reliable or third party source. Another source is a post by the President of the AANMC appearing on the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians website again clearly not independent, reliable or third party. The final reference is to an article in The Huffington Post which again makes zero mention of the AANMC. The material about the AANMC contributing significantly to licensing, recognition as first professional degree and increasing federal financial aid is not supported by the self published source and is contradicted on the Dept. of Ed. page (no Title IV eligibility). Regardless such a claim requires third party reliable sources. Likewise the work of the AANMC claimed needs proper sourcing.

This article contains no support for the notability of it's subject. There is barely any support for the existence of this organization and none of it from independent, reliable, third party sources. If the unsourced material and material which is supported only by self published or interested parties were removed the article would not have any content.

The information in this article that can be supported (if there is any) belongs as material in the article Naturopathic medical school in North America. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search shows tons of hits for this organization at many unaffiliated reliable sources. There seems to be substantial evidence for the existence of the organization, their work cited by peers and so on. See WP:NGO for criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom can you post some of these unaffiliated reliable sources? Everything I see is not from unaffiliated sources. Nor am I seeing anything from what would clearly qualify as a reliable source. Please also consider posting some of them to the talk page of the article so interested editors can use them to properly source the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's pick one, there are so many. Montana State University provides information about AANMC.[25] According to WP:NGO #2, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources". Granted this is just an "info and activities" page, but there are dozens more like it. There are also journal articles[26], citations[27][28]. Here's a Bill introduced in VA, [29] State of Conn. [30], NIH [31]. You take exception to claims made in the article and lacking sources, fine. But that's different from nominating it for deletion. The question of AfD is if could exist as a 2-sentence stub, merely exist at all. I think there's enough to show it could pass as a notable WP:NGO because so many reliable institutions reference it as being a reliable organization on the subject of accredited naturopathic medical colleges. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If the article is improved I will change my opinion. I still think it is probably best merged into Naturopathic medical school in North America if not deleted. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is a nonprofit that represents the seven accredited naturopathic medical colleges in the United States and Canada. It is not itself a naturopathic medical school so it wouldn't make sense to merge the article under such a heading. The AANMC acts as an advocate for accredited naturopathic medical education at the state and federal level and by helping prospective students understand the distinction between naturopathic medical colleges whose curriculum is accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, a Department of Education-approved accrediting agency - and other programs that are not accredited at the federal level. This distinction is important as graduates of an accredited school may apply for a license to practice medicine in a licensed state or province once they have passed the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX) a professional licensing exam administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE). Licensed practitioners may also qualify for insurance coverage and in some states may serve as primary care physicians. Links to AANMC can be found on the CNME website: http://www.cnme.org/links.html, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' website: http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?pl=16&sl=56&contentid=56; the homepage of the NPLEX website: https://www.nabne.org/home/eligibility-requirements/; all the accredited naturopathic medical school websites, and many others. AANMC is a reputable, legitimate organization and the article should be taken off the articles for deletion page. User: Claretis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claretis (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Claretis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article about naturopathic medical schools in North America seems exactly the place material about an organization of medical schools belongs. The content of an article on the subject of naturopathic med schools is not just the schools themselves that would be a list. All of your statements seem like they would fit well within the scope of an article about naturopathic med schools. Much of what you state has little to do with the AANMC itself, CNME, DOE, NPLEX, NABNE, licensing etc. the role of the AANMC is only as a representative of a group of schools. Being linked to on websites is not significant to meeting the criteria for an article on Wikipedia. An independent third party source that verifies what you state about the AANMC is what is needed for an article on Wikipedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sorry, "If the article is improved I will change my opinion" is not acceptable. Keep on that basis alone. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking through comment + !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what was meant when I thanked Green cardamom and stated if the article was changed my opinion would change. I did not mean to imply that I had checked the references and found they established notability. I meant if they did and were included in the article it would change my opinion. I was not saying the article needs cleanup but that it needs sources to support notability and that the article was based primarily on first party, primary, involved sources that are self published. This is not appropriate for an article in WP per WP:Verifiability an article should not be based primarily on such sources. Providing a set of links to possible sources does not establish that they are reliable sources or explain what they state about the subject. If that were done the article would contain some of the information that might lead me to change my opinion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Keep on that basis alone" an argument in favor of the article or simply a tit-for-tat vote to counteract an opinion you feel is invalid? Deletion is not assessed by vote-counting alone but by the valid arguments with relevance to Wikipedia Policy (see the information box at the top). Your opinion will have more weight if you back it up with valid reasons as will the opinion you opposed. An invalid argument won't count in favor of either. Hope this helps you to state your case in a way that supports your vote.

The article as it stands is not establishing notability via WP:RS. The policy WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP seems to only be relevant for an article needing cleanup which meets the other pre-requisites (principally notability). This is not about clean-up to me. This is merely a matter of whether notability is established in the Lead Section (or anywhere - I'll be charitable as the article could be reorganised). I don't think this is the case right now (and reference 2 looks like a definition of naturopathy, not a citation for the text preceding the citation). The question is not about quality of the article's content, but whether the subject matter is within the scope of an encyclopedia. I'm not in a position to judge notability from my own knowledge. I need the sources, just as the WP Policies demand them. I came here via a WikiProject's Article Alerts page and have never heard of the organization despite a moderate degree of interest in Alt Med albeit that I'm not from North America, though I follow what goes on there almost as closely as the rest of the English-speaking world.

It is a basic prerequisite of any Wikipedia article to establish notability in the Lead, citing multiple third-party reliable sources with a fairly substantial depth of coverage (and I'd be inclined to be lenient on the depth of coverage if there are plenty of sources). See policies WP:NOTE and particularly WP:ORG.

I've put the article on my Watchlist and will review any improvement in establishing notability to merit its own article. As it stands I see no evidence that this organization meets either of those policies and would have to support Deletion. It is perfectly reasonable to reappraise my opinion in the light of new evidence of notability (i.e. a rewritten Lead Section establishing notability with good citations), so as a matter of urgency I personally believe that notability must be established to be sure the article is not deleted. If it cannot be, I don't see a great loss in deleting it. I'd suggest anyone with a personal enthusiasm for restoring it could copy the article source to a text file on their own computer (or online storage space) so that in the event of deletion they could recreate the article once they find sources that establish notability. If you believe you've established notability either in the live article or a draft in your User area, feel free to contact me via my User Talk page and I'll happily review it and make suggestions.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asked for WP:RS. Green Cardamon provided a sufficient number, the nominator thanked him and said if they were added if the article was improved, he'd change his opinion. If he doesn't contest that these are WP:RS it makes no difference whether they're currently in the article or not. Also, why are you asking editors to contact you personally on your user talk page for you to 'review and make suggestions'? The discussion is happening here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my nomination I explained that the article was lacking RS. The set of links provided does not give the article RS, nor establish the links as RS, nor explain the content in the links as it establishes notability or provides content that would satisfy the requirements for an encyclopedic article. Examining the links provided, Montana State University does not seem to state anything about the subject of the article (information) other than it has a website with a list of accredited schools, in fact in regards to the activities of the subject it states that, "Applications are through individal schools" this does not establish any kind of notability nor seem to be the sort of material called for as material to base an article on. The first journal article has an explicit disclaimer that it is solely the opinion of the author thus not meeting criteria as a journal article and the journal itself seems questionable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The other journal article (story about a one month rotation at a naturopathic college) lists the AANMC as a source for the number of states regulating naturopathy. This is not providing information about the AANMC and use as a reference for a single fact does not establish notability. The VA proposed law seems to refer to the AANMC as accrediting schools and having residency requirements. The AANMC is not a recognized accrediting agency, no mention of residency requirements apppears elsewhere, was this perhaps an error the author meaning to refer to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education? An important reason to cite passed laws rather than proposed ones. I added the CT legislation to the article as I felt it provided a single high quality reference about the AANMC but that alone does not make for an encyclopedia article. The link identified as NIH leads to a journal article with one sentence about the AANMC which cites the AANMC itself. None of these satisfy notability in my opinion.

An article on WP should be about a notable subject (not established), should not be based primarily on first party, non independent or self published material (this article is).

Another item mentioned in my nomination was content fork please see, List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America and Naturopathic medical school in North America. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 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) 03:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization has been mentioned in a fair number of reliable sources, but it fails the "significant coverage" prong of the general notability guideline. I've searched around and checked out the sources linked earlier in the discussion, but all I've seen is passing mentions, citations, and primary sources. The sources Green Cardamom found seem fairly representative, so I'll address some of them individually:

[32]: This is just a directory entry listing some very generic admissions requirements ("completed application", "transcripts", and so on) for unnamed schools. I see no evidence of editorial control—not everything hosted on a .edu domain is a reliable source.
[33]: This is a news article from an e-journal that, at least on the surface, appears somewhat reliable. But it's not about the AANMC, which in only mentioned once in passing as an example of a member of the umbrella organization that is the subject of the article.
[34]: This a peer-reviewed article indexed in PubMed, so it's plenty reliable. But the AANMC isn't even mentioned in the text of the article—it's just in one of the citations, and that's definitely not significant coverage.
[35]: Same as above—it's reliable, but a passing mention in a citation does nothing to establish notability.
[36] Reliable source, but it's just a one-sentence passing mention.
[37] This is the text of a Connecticut Department of Public Health regulation. It's really a primary source (rather than a piece of scholarship or journalism), so it doesn't really establish any notability in my book. And even if it was a good secondary source, the AANMC only gets (deja vu) a passing mention as an example of a continuing education provider.
[38] Similar to above, this is a legislative bill (and a failed one at that), and the AANMC is only mentioned in passing, not discussed.

To take the sources you brought up, Shawn in Montreal ([39] [40] [41]), a link is definitely a passing mention rather than a discussion as well. I think we need something a lot stronger to start establishing notability. I grant you that these links help establish that the AANMC probably exists, but then again so does my bicycle.

I could go on, but all the other mentions of the AANMC I saw when searching were just as weak. I'm happy to revise my opinion if someone can point out stronger sources, but for the moment I don't think anyone has. —Neil 19:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this AfD discussion has been posted to WikiProjects Skepticism and Alternative Medicine here and here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:14, 30 September 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. As for the possibility of a merge into Nina Rosenwald, since that target article has been created and changed significantly as this AFD has progressed, a separate merge discussion may be started to determine if that is a viable editorial path to take. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatestone Institute[edit]

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

The group isn't notable, as they lack any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the hits are their own publications, with a few trivial passing mentions in articles on other subjects. One of those even mentions that the group is little-known. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had considered deleting it initially when I found the article, and I've been too busy lately to follow up. I haven't been able to find anything significant to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge due to a lack of reliable secondary sourcing about GI; but The Nation[42] suggests an article for Nina Rosenwald might work, with a sub-section for her think tank. Merge to Nina Rosenwald. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Nina Rosenwald (I was planning on creating her article soon). Sadly, I'm afraid a lack of NPOV is behind the decision of some users currently favoring the deletion of this article. It clearly meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and so the fact that a sentence or two don't seem right, doesn't mean everything should be deleted. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Wikipedia article does not mention, currently, many sources about Gatestone Institute and external to it. Howewer, it might change, this could be fixed (or not). About the lack of source, please notice that the think-tank was previously named "Stonegate Institute" and "Hudson New York Institute". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond I must say just for the record that this user has been stalking me for a while now and has tried to irritate me and pretty much do the opposite of everything I say on Wikipedia. Like here and here for example, so I don't know if his opinion isn't biased. Secondly, regarding the claim that there are too many self-published sources for the article, I don't think it matters because the Gatestone Institute does have enough reliable coverage from other news networks. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? You've repeatedly claimed that it's notable, but haven't bothered to provide any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom11111, you're describing WP:HOUNDING. Easy enough to prove using the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Ask for help from an admin or post to WP:ANI. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom I appreciate your comment, hounding is indeed a better term and thanks a lot for that editor interaction analyzer web tool. Roscelese, the sources can all be found it the article itself. Because I care enough about it I collected 10 of these reliable sources that support the article's notability - some mention the Gatestone Institute while some expand on it, others use it as a source, and more. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. It says in WP:BASIC that "A [Wikipedia article] is presumed to be notable if [it] has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Click here for a perfect example of one. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sources you have posted is that they are not reliable or independent, and/or that they do not provide the significant coverage that notability requires. If you are unsure of how our notability guidelines work, the Teahouse is designed to help new users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that none of these 11 sources I listed is reliable, independent, or provides enough coverage? I actually do have quite some experience in English Wikipedia and am therefore surprised by and disagree with your claim Shalom11111 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those constitutes anything significantly reliable about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. The Nation and others are reliable sources to discuss this topic. If you mean the coverage is trivial that's a different issue from reliability. But even brief mentions can be significant, such as a one sentence in The Nation that says the think tank is "little known" - only two words, but highly significant. The measure of significance is what information do we learn from the source, not how many words it contains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained, I couldn't have said it better. Let me add to that another sentence quoted from the reliable National Review Online's article: "The Gatestone Institute is a remarkable resource, a fount of unnerving news and analysis of other-side-of-the-pond political correctness in the face of Muslim demands." In addition, of course, with over 5,000 likes on Facebook, the organization has been used as a main source for many articles by well known news networks/websites, some of which I put links for above. Again, I wouldn't mind creating the the page Nina Rosenwald and merging the article with it, but in my opinion doing so isn't the proper decision here. - Shalom11111 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clearly sufficient secondary sources for its importance. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now sourced to The Nation, the Institute for Policy Studies Right Web, National Review, etc. Seconding DGG, that should be sufficient. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - References to The Nation and National Review are trivial. reddogsix (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search learns that the GI is referred to in The Algemeiner [43], Le Matin (Morocco) [44], Libertad Digital [45] and in the Jerusalem Post [46]. And this is only the harvest of one month of news. Whatever you think of this instutute, it knows how to get international coverage. And thus, it is notable enough to have it's own article.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are trivial coverage. Three are very, very brief mentions - single line. and one is an article attributed to a member of the institute. These hardly support notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? The Algemeiner is quoting extensively from the Institute, as does the Jerusalem Post. Only Le Matin quotes another site, which quotes the institute. Anyway. the Algemeiner mentioned the Gatestone Institute in a lot of articles (see [47], the JP refers to it in twelve: see [48]. A search at Le Matin gives five results, including one that is IMHO non-trivial: it even calls it un think tank américain de renommée internationale spécialisé dans les questions stratégiques et de défense (see [49].) Although this praise might be a bit exaggerating its status, it certainly shows that, like I said, it is notable enough to have it's own article. Regards Jeff5102 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – No rational argument for deletion: Wikipedia is loaded with organization's that are barely referenced through online searches. Claiming that The Nation and National Review is "trivial" reveals a bias against the organization as well as right-leaning sources. Is anyone really going to claim the organization is lying about John R. Bolton or Elie Wiesel affiliation with the group? That alone merits the organization's notability for a Wikipedia page. The conversation should be about improving the page, not "deletion." I will continue to improve the page and welcome others to join me. But ruining the hard work of writers because you may not like the organizations work goes against everything Wikipedia is about. Hawkswin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkswin (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:FAITH. You ask for a collaborative working atmosphere, but then assume bad faith by accusing people having an ideological agenda to delete the article. Wikipedia does not work in that negative atmosphere of finger pointing. There is no evidence anyone here is voting for delete other than based on a rules-basis. It does the article no favors by assuming bad faith in others. Also while Elie Wiesel affiliation is reason to look more closely for notability, association of famous people does not make an organization notable (per the rules). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkswin, apart from what Green Cardamom already said: a ) if you vote, please write down the word "Keep" or "Delete" in bold;b ) sign your post with four tildes (~) to make your vote visible on the statistics-page. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in addition no one said the The Nation or National Review are trivial, only the references that used them. Wikipedia may be "loaded" with non-notable organizations, but that is not a reason to keep this one. Feel free to nominate those for deletion. Additionally, an affiliation with someone that is considered as notable by Wikipedia is not a valid reason to establish notability. Notability is not inherited. If this were the case every waiter in Hollywood would have a page. (Before anyone decides that I am comparing the article in question to a waiter, no, this is only an attempt at humor.) reddogsix (talk) 21:25, 24 September 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) 03:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even though the final decision will be probably be "keep", I see no reason to relist this deletion entry. At first there were some speculations about the notability of and coverage on the Gatestone Institute, but as the article progressed and comments here proved, there's nearly no doubt about it anymore. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly with Yamabaram. The main argument for deletion was the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The users on the 'keep'-side provided several links to articles in which the institute was mentioned. The only question that an administrator had to answer was: do the given links show that the coverage is significant or trivial? It might not be the easiest question to answer. Still, I cannot see what good this further discussion can do. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article on Nina Rosenwald exists now, so I imagine everyone would be satisfied with a redirect or merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No.The reasons behind this ‘no’ are:

The Institute article has improved significantly. The problem of the lack of sources (which was the argument to merge or delete it) is solved, and thus the need to merge it is gone.
The Gatestone Institute is more notable than Ms. Rosenwald. It got a) more google hits, b) more third party coverage, and c) more articles on wikipedia link to it. Furthermore, there are more people involved to the institute than just Ms. Rosenwald.
Thus, the Gatestone Institute cannot be seen as “just a part of Nina Rosenwald’s life.” And since Rosenwald has done more things in her life than founding an institute, she cannot be seen as “just the founder of an Institute.”

And all that makes me decide to vote against a merge. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, the added sources are trivial and/or unreliable, and you've been here long enough that you should know better than to cite GOOGLEHITS (especially since I specifically addressed that earlier). A merge or redirect has the benefit of keeping the title, for those users who want to be able to search on it or link to it, while also being compliant with our notability policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, sofar, I was the only one (at 24 September) in this discussion to use the term "google," so don't claim you've explained it all here. And the argument in this case was not it got excessive hits, so we must keep it, as what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. The argument was the search-term "Gatestone Institute" returned more hits than "Nina Rosenwald." In fact, the Institute returned 135,000 results, while Rosenwald only returned 18,500. And then I don't know if there are any other Nina Rosenwalds out there. THis leads me to the conclusion that we should not redirect a page to a page who got only 15% of the coverage of the original article. Moreover, you never explained what is wrong with "Le Matin"-newspaper. Why is their praise unreliable and/or trivial?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably borderline in terms of significance, but one piece couldn't support an article even if it were clearly significant. We have standards for how much coverage shows notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge with anything else—Gatestone and Nina Rosenwald are notable in their own right. Jeff explains it well. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And please excuse my confusion. I got here after googling Gatestone and clicking the Wikipedia entry. I was googling after seeing information cited to Gatestone here: [50] The Wikipedia told me pretty much what I wanted to know, who works for them, where they stand politically... Wikipedia regularly, albeit not perfectly, does that. I also like that it facilitates verification. I clicked on links to The Nation, and National Review. Which is when I also clicked on the box at the top of the Gatestone Wikipedia page and got here, to this page. Permit me to share my perplexity. This is a useful article about a new think tank/policy institute/online magazine publishing authors many of whom are independently notable. This is the sort of question that most of us rely on Wikipedia to answer. Why on earth do you want to delete this article? And what sense would it make to "merge" it into an article on one of the funders?AnonymousW.user (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive comments about the article, AnonymousW. It's still growing; we haven't even added Geert Wilders yet! You ask: "Why on earth do you want to delete this article?" I would answer your question but I might be punished for attacking my fellow editors (which I've been recently warned not to do). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge. The previous contributors make an excellent case, especially AnonymousW. I believe that it is already at a stage that its notability has been confirmed and it merging would be a disservice to the writers and public, but for those still unsure, please take into account the point made by 72.66.30.115 that the article is still growing and with multiple contributors interested in this page, I think it is safe to say that sooner rather than later, your reservations should be negated.Hawkswin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkswin (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to squeak through WP:NONPROFIT. But man does it need a cleanup! Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must say there was only one editor, other the the user who nominated the article for deletion, who said 'delete' in this entire discussion (excluding all "weak delete/merge" responses). And that was in the very beginning, now there sure is a general consensus about it. Earlier I said the article should be merged with Nina Rosenwald before her full well written article was un-deleted, and I take it back now, in fact even the other way around isn't a logical solution here. These two articles are more notable and have more coverage than at least a quarter of English Wikipedia's 4 million articles - keep them as is and leave them alone!;) Shalom11111 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nina Rosenwald. I looked and looked for even one third-party source discussing the founding of the think tank, or a detailed discussion of its positions. There is nothing but one liners out there, trivial mentions of the group in relation to something else. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 4 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thangorodrim[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Tolkien's works 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) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This kind of obsessive fancruft belongs on Wikia. You should have listed the entire category in a single AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment There are several independent works discussing this mountain: J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment, Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia, On the Shoulders of Hobbits: The Road to Virtue with Tolkien and Lewis, The Origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth For Dummies, and Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings: A Guide to Middle-earth. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many things cover it if they don't provide a real world perspective. The symbolism discussion sort of counts, but it's part of a wider topic of symbolism better explored elsewhere. There shouldn't be a single sentence in each location mentioned in that section, but a cohesive section or article elsewhere discussing the topic in its entirety. The closest thing about the topic itself is the mapping error, but that would be something applied to a more general section about his writing. TTN (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument! If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a topic can meet WP:GNG, but if the sources discuss it in an in-universe way only, then we can't write about it without running afoul of WP:NOTPLOT, so we should delete - is that right? Are there any policies stating that explicitly? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the moment that we're ignoring the two examples of related topics that shouldn't really factor into the notability equation for this specific article, both NOTPLOT and WP:WAF should discount the other three sources overall. They only contain primary information, so the cannot provide WAF's secondary information requirement and obviously only add to the plot discussion to fail NOTPLOT. They can be used to cite in-universe information if there is also pertinent real world information, but otherwise fail to establish notability from simply repeating what is found in the primary sources. I'm personally adamant in that the other two apply more to his general writing practices and the analysis of the overall symbolism found in his works than they do to this small part of those, so I guess it would depend on how you view them if this argument were to actually hold any weight. TTN (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're definitely making me think here. I see what you're saying, and am mindful of WAF's emphatic "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." Those three sources, while reliable and independent of the subject, are nothing but plot summary. According to our policies, then, the article should be deleted. I don't understand why this is the case though - if a topic has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, so that the information can be easily verified, what purpose is served by deleting it? The fact that these three books discuss this topic shows that it is of general interest, so how does deleting this article make the encyclopedia better? --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say collecting information for a general encyclopedia on the author's work would be more an indication of notability for the overall topic than that of the individual topics within. You can certainly say that they are being "covered" in a sense, but they aren't collected because each individual topic is displaying importance. It's their overall cohesiveness into describing his fictional world that is the reason for their coverage. TTN (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps you're right. I'm still not sure so I'm withdrawing my !vote. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tolkien research provides tons of sources to draw on to justify an article for every person, mountain and stream in Middle Earth. I'm not convinced we should do that unless there is compelling reason why that topic is highly significant. Better suited to a specialized Tolkien encyclopedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are sufficient. Of course elements of Tolkien's works are discussed in works dealing with Tolkien. An objection is like saying that essentially everything published on major elements in Shakespeare's plays are in works dealing with shakespeare. The material that should go to Wikia is the ones that are just alluded to, and this is more important than that. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Category:Middle-earth locations? 47 articles on "Middle Earth Mountains". Now, a lot of them are redirects, but look at the history, they have been converted from articles. There was a time when fans thought it would be cool to use Wikipedia as an all encompassing Middle Earth Encyclopedia (really more like a glossary since they are all plot descriptions). As for Shakespeare, look at the Categories there is nothing like this, nor should their be, just because something could be written about doesn't mean it's notable, see WP:NOTPLOT. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's settings are notable as there are entire books written about them such as Shakespeare's Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama. If Wikipedia doesn't do more to cover them, then this will not be helped by attacking the material that we do have. For my part, I've done work on that and other authors such as Dickens' London. I'd like to do more but the time gets eaten up by these vexatious nominations. Warden (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reference finds by Cerebellum. A GScholar search finds about a hundred results, with a number of articles from Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review mentioning the fictional location. There are plenty of secondary independent reliable sources out there upon which to base short article. The article could use more references, but there are no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information and secondary sources are available, so WP:NOTPLOT doesn't apply here. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This isn't the Tolkien setting-piece I'd most like to hang my hat on in an inclusion/deletion debate over the legendarium, admittedly. But Tolkien's world is studied and analyzed by scholarly sources to an extent few other modern fantasy settings can hope to aspire to. Tolkien Studies entirely notwithstanding, there's some discussion of the location in the pages of Modern Fiction Studies, and in the 2000 Praeger-published J.R.R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth. Probably more. The current article is in grim condition and ought to cite such sources (including their discussion of the symbolic value of the setting) but fails to do so, yet that is not a cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 20 September 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) 03:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as seen by the list of sources provided above. The suggestion that we should delete this to promote Wikia is absurd. Wikia is a commercial, profit-making rival to Wikipedia and we should no more assist them than we do the Encyclopedia Britannica. Just about everything published by Wikipedia is found elsewhere (the main exception being these time-wasting internal arguments). Publication elsewhere is what establishes notability and therefore is quite the opposite of a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Minor places in Arda#I (for Iron Mountains), the article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. Sources have been proposed in this discussion, unfortunately after careful review, all of them are only short, trivial mentions within plot summaries and do not provide significant coverage or out-of-universe information such as origin, development, influence or reception, without which it is impossible to build an encyclopedic article that goes beyond a mere plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 4 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Diaz Ortiz[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Also, is not adequately notable per WP:Notability/WP:BLP. Further, article is a puff piece. Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG. Interview in Forbes,[51] Q&A at Washington Post,[52] Fast Company profile,[53] Huffington Post,[54] Latino Magazine,[55] NRB,[56] The Christian Post,[57] CNN.[58] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 20 September 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) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of coverage of her and her book in reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luthic[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons 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) 16:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there are secondary sources. What's more there are no plot details in this one whatsoever. It helps to give policy based reasons, but they need to take account of the actual content of the article. I do not know what "no current assertion for future improvement means". How can there be current indications of future improvement? (I assume that's meant by "assertions", or is the meaning "The article does not specifically say it can be expanded? Unless people stop writing about this game, which seems unlikely, there are certainly possibilities for future improvement. Even stub articles are acceptable, so there is no need for "extended" coverage as a criterion for keeping. Every single sentence of the nomination is incorrect. It would make as much sense to nominate this as "BLP violation". DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are primary sources from the main company, and character descriptions are plot details. There is no potential for the improvement of the article shown anywhere, as in references listed and not yet utilized or even the basic presumption that it can be salvaged to conform to current guidelines and policies. TTN (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think you have shown that you don't actually know that much about this subject except for how to copy and paste and AFD tag to them. Maybe if you had done some research or even proposed some changes even mergers we might take your claims more seriously. But as it stands you look like you are trying to push your own POV on Wikipedia. Web Warlock (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to know anything about it (though in the case of this overall topic, I have read some of the Forgotten Realms novel series). I generally plug the name into the searches up above and look at the results. WP:BURO in regards to strictly following BEFORE by the letter. These articles are not good at all, and deleting them is perfectly fine. If they happened to have to be merged, it doesn't really matter, but deletion would be preferable to keep them from being recreated. The fact that the project let an anon revert dozens of proper merges without even intervening shows that you guys also don't really care anyway. TTN (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, The nominator's rationale clearly mentions a lack of "independent" and "third party" sourcing. That you consider the sources to be "secondary" (which is itself incorrect), doesn't change the fact they are not "independent" and "third party" (Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent). Your recommendation is thus fundamentally faulty and ignores the deletion rationale, if you want it to have any weight I advise you to amend it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Orc deities. I find the rationale behind this nom to be suspect. For example is not part of the community guideline to first propose a merger BEFORE an AFD. It doesn't matter what the nom thinks is going to happen. Speculation like that is too much like Original Research to me. Web Warlock (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of DGG. --Mark viking (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reasoning? He misidentified the official D&D resources as secondary, and the rest is just nitpicking at the wording of my rational. The article does not satisfy WP:N at this point. TTN (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as always with these articles, not a single independent secondary source so we can't verify notability. Not a single argument for keeping the article is policy based. I will change my vote to keep immediately if an editor can find a reliable independent secondary source which discusses the topic of "Luthic" in depth. Fanboys just wanna keep their cruft.--Simone 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete. Either is acceptable. I agree with Simone. There has been no credible, policy-based argument for keeping this article. It boils down to WP:ILIKEIT or zealous inclusionism. The article does not satisfy the WP:GNG, and it does not matter whether TTN uses a boilerplate or not. There are no independent, secondary sources, and the article is even helpfully tagged with PRIMARY. I don't see how any any of DGG's arguments are true. Dragon, TSR, and Wizards of the Coast are all trademarks of the publisher. How are there any secondary sources? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official D&D resources are secondary; only the game itself is primary. But what would be correct to say is that the official resources are not independent. Given that this is simply a split, the question is one of style--whether it is best presented separately or not. And to discuss that, we need to consider the inability to prevent merged material from disappearing. That's happened many times, and it's why the fiction minimalists accept merges if they must. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for a fictional setting across many rulebooks like D&D, secondary would be references that provide transformative information about the diety's role in the broader work than just a being with some number of stats. (Arguably, there could be first-party secondary sources, such as a notable licensed novel that goes into depth on the diety, but that's not what is being offered here, and even in that case, it would still depend what transformation is done. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:FICTIONPLOT, any source that provides original (or supplementary) in-universe development to a character (ie plot) is primary by definition. For example, the 7 Harry Potter books are primary sources, not just the first one. If a source provides out of universe commentary from an author, then this is secondary information, but then when have to take into account the independence or affiliation of the source. To be clear, any book authored under copyright from WotC or D&D is affiliated (non-independent), and any book that provides supplementary storyline/gameplay elements is primary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is about quality over quantity. Let's say hypothetically that the parent article on Dungeons and Dragons characters is the only one backed up by independent sources which substantiate notability. Would it serve the reader to find all of the material about the characters currently present on the article ? Of course not; the reader is uninterested in knowing the specifics of relatively obscure figures such as Luthic and wants to find a more general article about the sorts of characters which inhabit the Dungeons and Dragons universe. It's not a question of style whether to keep these articles; we are not allowed to have articles on non-notable topics which are subtopics of parent topics as notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not about everything, there are fanwikis which are much more suited to this endless regurgitation of trivial plot features. Simone 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is off topic for the purposes of this discussion, but...Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality. Quantity, in the form of comprehensive coverage, is what makes Wikipedia typically so much more useful than traditional encyclopedias. I'd rather have 100 rough articles with some useful information than 10 polished articles and and huge gaps in coverage. That groups interested in specialist topics have had to create wikis separate from Wikipedia, is frankly, a failing of our community. --Mark viking (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where should the line be drawn? Just going from D&D, there are hundreds of character and setting articles, and that probably covers a fraction of a percent of all the possible articles. Just the Forgotten Realms setting has over ten thousand articles on their wiki, let alone all the other versions. If this character is allowed a free pass, why can't the hundreds of thousands of other characters from all other series get articles? You can try to designate major and minor topics and regulate lists, but in the end such a mindset only opens the door for a flood of people arguing that "minor character A" from "Series L" is just as important as "secondary character Q" from "series G." That's the reason for requiring a real world viewpoint so as to cover topics from an objective standpoint. TTN (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if "Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality." then there would be no policies WP:V / WP:OR / WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE as it is far easier to generate quantity if you dont have to actually provide any sources and can spew your personal opinion into every article. Quality matters if you care about your reputation. And Wikipedia is nothing if people dont trust the quality of the content. A large portion of the audience in fact presumes there is an official editing oversight and the assume that what they read here is " true" - we owe it to them to make quality our highest value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is all about quantity, not quality" outright contradicts WP:NOT: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet".Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as a valid search term. No GNG-type sourcing demonstrated. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this cruft. As for Wikipedia, there are no independent sources, only sources by the creator/officially licensed producers, no one else has found the subject worthy of note. Per WP:GNG the options would be merge, redirect or delete. Since the potential merge target itself is completely bloated with primary sourced cruft with only 1 item sourced to a potentially independent source (and the "independence" of that is arguable as the author has created officially licensed content), merge would essentially be just be shovelling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. The name is a potential search term and so redirect seems the appropriate choice. However, since redirect is where we were before it was cruftspanded by an IP, the redirect should be locked down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as redirect/merge to Orc deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:39, 26 September 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) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or delete, per users NinjaRobotPirate and Vulcan's Forge. The keep comments blatantly ignore the nomination rationale, and fundamentally misunderstand WP:GNG and the different levels of sourcing. The article is devoid of a single secondary source, let alone independent sources, it thus fails to demonstrate notability of the topic per WP:GNG and is better merged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge – Per NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge, Folken de Fanel. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:17, 28 September 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) 02:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueID[edit]

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

This page seems like an advert, but I thought I should give it the benefit of the doubt and nominate an AfD. The references are terrible, as most of them are clearly adverts. Baimos is good for info, but doesnt help much with establishing notability, which is another big problem for this article. It doesnt even really assert notability, let alone show it. Benboy00 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find much evidence of notability. James^x1 2345 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 September 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) 03:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has notability criteria available for anyone to read and this article is not meeting those criteria. In particular, the sources cited are neither reliable sources nor are some of them about the subject of the article, and also the coverage does not indicate that this product meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Seems to be a German thing with some degree of notability over there but I can't find anything about BlueID on the German Wikipedia. I'm unable to accurately assess reliability of the German sources cited in the article. ~KvnG 14:40, 1 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 System for Award Management. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Contractor Registration[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CSD G4 declined.

The current article does not addresst the concerns from the previous AfD. Triplestop (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the citations currently in the article:

citation #3

The earlier version of the article is here. It said "The company has been featured in the Washington Post [...]" which was not supported by the story cited, which does not mention the company or its principals. This version properly cites the same story to support the statement

In order to bid on a federal contract, a business must first go through an extensive registration process with the United States Federal Government that can take an extended period of time.

citation #2
The newly-added Fox News story is about another subject, with three sentences related to the company: slightly more than a passing mention.

citation #4
The femacontracts.com page (archive link because site is offline now) is not an independent source: the domain is registered to Daniel Driscoll of St. Petersburg, Florida. The current version of the Wikipedia article says the company is in St. Petersburg and that its treasurer is Dan Driscoll. The citation calls it the "FEMA Contracts website" which could confuse readers into thinking the site belongs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a department of the US government.

citation #1
The Washington Business Journal story is entirely about the company and is written in a skeptical manner. The site is the 384th most popular in the United States, according to Alexa so it must have a good-sized audience. —rybec 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment on WBJ. WBJ is a frequent publisher of material based on press releases. The article here however appears not to be a press release, but a discussion of the product. (I do caution that it may have been inspired by a press release, with the writer then adding a paragraph of two of evaluation. Such is the manner of more sophisticated journalistic handling of press releases, but that tends to be almost indistinguishable from the normal run of business journalism) I dont think it's alone enough to support the notability of the company. If we do keep the article, the name must be changed to remove the impression that this is a government agency. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Plenty of room for the basics in Central Contractor Registration, which should probably be moved to the organization's new name? The basics here are worth including but not necessarily an independent article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 23 September 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) 03:25, 28 September 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 Action Masters. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleon (Transformers)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Action Masters. This is pure fancruft. The parent article is a nightmare of poor sources, but it will solve the in-universe and notability issues of this article, which I do not think are surmountable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 21 September 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) 03:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Action Masters per NinjaRobotPirate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:13, 4 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Femizonia (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Misterandersen (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable, independent secondary sources have been provided which cover this article as required to verify notability per our policy on reliable sources. --Simone 09:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Deletion is also acceptable. The article asserts no notability beyond primary sources, and my own attempts to find reliable sources on Google were unsuccessful. This does not seem like a notable topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 21 September 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) 03:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe per NinjaRobotPirate, fails WP:GNG per the absence of sources other than primary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:15, 4 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 Mjees. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majees FC[edit]

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

Contested proud as editor doubted this was a duplication. This unreferenced article appears to be an accidental duplication of Mjees. The sources in this article show that perhaps the original article title has been misspelled causing some confusion. I can see no evidence that there are two teams with essentially the same name in this league. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mjees, the existing article on the same topic. Giant Snowman 10:01, 23 September 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) 03:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mjees - no need for two articles on the same topic, and it is afterall a reasonable misspelling that our readers might search for. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special Mission Unit[edit]

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

Delete - Simply not enough verifiable content to be a stub, much less an article. From the few sources there are, it cannot be determined if this is an actual designation used by JSOC, or a common descriptor used by the media. I wish it could be more, but there's not enough. What little there is, is already covered in a section of the same name on the JSOC page. Due to the extremely classified nature of the content, it is unlike much more (if any at all) content will be added. - thewolfchild 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 03:11, 27 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides a useful discussion of this term (which is often used, including by serious military experts), and is creaking with references. Given that the Australian military applies the term to the elite SAS Regiment, merging this into the US article is nonsensical. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article clearly meets WP:GNG because there is significant coverage from numerous reliable sources independent of the subject at hand. Regarding "verifiability"... a quick search for the term results in 282,000 google hits, 2,620 results in google books alone, 133 results in google scholar and countless references in the news and not from a small handful of non-reliable news agencies either. Regarding the "everything is already covered at JSOC..." The Australian military use the term to describe one of their SOF units (Special Air Service Regiment) so that makes zero sense as far as that goes (link). Could the article be expanded? sure, but so could every other article assessed as a stub. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. — -dainomite 03:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of you have mentioned the ref's. Some of them are dubious, and even tho' some are RS, there's still no confirmation that this isn't just a common descriptor, (they are units... they go on missions... they are special). There is no info about the Aus SASR what-so-ever, other than a single blurb that described them as a SMU. What is there to discuss? Other than that, there's five US units, and no confirmation that they're even all in the same class. (read: tier) There's not enough info for an article as is. It can't be expanded. And there is already more info in the JSOC article. - thewolfchild 04:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not proven that Special Mission Unit is not verifiable, if you look at the find sources links at the top of the AfD it is clear that the term is used by reliable sources as I mentioned before. AfD's are not for articles that are simply in bad shape or articles that are stubs. Just because no one has taken the time to fully expand it into a "full article" isn't a valid reason for deletion either since there is no deadline. — -dainomite 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you have is a collection of sources where the media has used the term to describe these units, and not one source from anything official stating that is exactly what these units are officially classified as. Since there is no official name, the media has to call them something. (read: WP:NOT) - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. It's not good enough to say that an article lacks information about something at AfD. Deletion is not for articles that are merely in bad shape. Even a stub will be kept if it can be demonstrated that an article could be created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's point, there is noting further (of substance) that can be added. That's why it has been in this 'shape' for so long. There's has been multiple cleanup/fixup tags here for over two years, how much longer are we gonna let this sit here? - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. If you are that concerned about the quality of this article, improve it yourself. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point... this article can't be improved. (but thank you for the pointless reference and your impartial contribution) - thewolfchild 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite the opposite. You're missing the point. You say the article can't grow beyond a stub, yet in the time since you have filed this AfD, the article has been significantly improved. Don't say something can't be improved simply because you haven't bothered to take the time to do the work. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the... (bah, nevermind) Anyway, you say "significantly improved"? I see a lot of needless repetition needless repetition used to fill out a stub created on speculation. And now, since it appears that the original premise could not be supported, (hence my nomination here), there is an on-going attempt to change the premise, simply to try and justify keeping it (and nullify this nomination) But everything here is already covered in other articles. (see wiki-101) - thewolfchild 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - essentially per Nick. This article easily passes GNG, and we don't delete articles because they're short or in bad shape. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point being missed here is that this small bit of info, such that it is, is already covered in the JSOC article, making this stub redundant and needless. - thewolfchild 12:47, 1 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's High School - Bradshaw, MD[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. The article was originally PRODed by Mys 721tx (talk · contribs) with the rationale, "School that might not have in depth coverage." As a former high school, the subject may be assumed for notability per longstanding practice. See WP:NHS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Notability is not temporary. However, given the amount of time that has passed and the paucity of sources, it is still definitely questionable. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. Needs a rewrite and a rename though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article. I realize it is brief and needs more work. I put it in with the intention of further development. The reason I made the entry is that I am part of the largest class in the history of the school and when I entered my information on Classmates.com and Facebook.com, the name St. Stephens High school comes up from Wickepedia and a school in Hickory NC. Although the actual high school in Bradshaw has since been torn down and students sent to John Carroll, it is a part of history and deserves to be acknowledged. Several of my classmates have the same issue. I was the editor of the yearbook and am in the process or organizing a reunion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahf24th (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biodegradable urn[edit]

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

the article is an advertisement for Bios Urns. Existence of biodegradable urns can be briefly mentioned at urn, without promoting a specific company. Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to urn as has been proposed on the talk page. There are a number of reliable sources about this type of urn, enough to justify coverage about it in an appropriate place in the encyclopedia. Deletion is not desirable here given the better alternative of preserving the valid content and multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually doesn't have any inline citations at all, and the References section contains links to promotional pieces. The External links are also all promotional sites for the same branded product. As already stated, existence of biodegradable urns can be briefly mentioned at urn, and a separate article is not warrnated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a news story is about a particular product doesn't automatically make it promotional. The subject was the subject of news stories from CBC News, Fox News, Time, and Discovery.com. I don't see the benefit of deleting those multiple references rather than merging them into a better article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?! Advertorial content is frequently inserted into news programs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a small amount of non-promotional text, along with some of the sources from this article, at urn, as well as a bit of additional needed context about the use of urns in modern cremation ceremonies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by multiple reliable sources [59] [60]. (Inline) citations not required to establish notability; coverage must exist but it need not be cited. May still be desirable to merge into Urn but that can be discussed on talk pages after AfD is closed. ~KvnG 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources present advertorial content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my assessment, these sources meet WP:RS. What constitutes reliable reference for you? ~KvnG 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per a source review. For starters, see some of the sources within the article. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many products that get 'paid news' segments, but they don't automatically warrant individual articles for their branded product. The concept of biodegradable urns should be mentioned at urn.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for asserting that all these news reports are "paid news"? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Under what circumstances do you imagine that various news sources would seek out this kind of product as 'news'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may not seek it out but editors make a conscious decision whether to publish it. These decisions form the basis of Wikipedia's notability criteria. ~KvnG 14:37, 3 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.

Merge to urn as has been proposed on the talk page. These links are a last ditch effort to market and used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action to a single product. The links are not relevant to a definition of biodegradable urn as fact but a means to market, each link is a funnel that leads to the same product page. Remove links and Merge to [[urn]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisbethSlander (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DATA (Digital Asset Transfer Authority)[edit]

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

WP:ORG, WP:CRYSTAL Organization in process of formation - not active.

The organization seems to be a web site and some press releases. It's way below the notability threshold for WP:ORG. It might be notable someday, but not yet. John Nagle (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, way too soon to have article since not notable yet. Anything "emerging" needs to wait until it emerges first. All sorts of groups issue a couple press releases and then are never heard from again. Creator was single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Richardboase who made five edits on the day this article was created and none since. Clearly not the way we would title an article with acronym first and real name in parentheses anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If this organization achieves its goals, it will likely become quite notable in time. But not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:49, 3 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.