Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 December	25 December >

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 keep. Sandstein 09:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong 1981 riots[edit]

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

Non-notable youth brawling, vandalism & arrests. 11 injuries with no deaths. No references, and none readily in the offing at the usual 'net engines. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Preliminarily weak) Keep Sources from Google Books search. I do not have the source materials to actually contribute or check if it is just passing or a full historic account, but may be a good lead for some. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 00:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 陈昕; 郭志坤 (1997). 香港全纪录:1960年-1997年. 中華書局. p. 273. ISBN 978-962-231-891-5.
- 邱誠武 (1983). 香港青少年間題探索. 臻善文化事業公司. p. 220.
- 楊森 (1984). 社會政策與社會運動. 廣角鏡出版社. p. 98.
Comment The relevant text in the first external link claims this incident happened in 1982, not 1981. See the Google translation. DiscantX (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the section it writes "After that, on New Year's Day 1982, there are smaller-scale riots in the community", which makes me believe that the first date was just a typo. That page does cite a 高添強 (1994). 圖片香港今昔. 三聯書店. p. 166-167. as source if anyone wants to check back to confirm. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good catch. I missed that. You're probably right, it's most likely a typo. DiscantX (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is mentioned in East-West Identities: Globalization, Localization, and Hybridization, edited by Kwok B. Chan, Jan W. Walls, David Hayward. "... it appears the 1981 riots were triggered by crowd of people concentrated in down town area celebrating Christmas and the New Year. ...". Also, Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization by Wai-Man Lam. "... Antigovernment sentiment lingered throughout the 1980s, as three riots of the 1980 attested. Two of three riots take place on the Christmas Day of 1981 and New Year's Day of 1982..." — HenryLi (Talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. per Henrylis reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bossolo[edit]

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

BLPPROD was removed but I can't see why. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 22:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The BLP prod was removed by Anthony Appleyard on the ground that the article now had references. Unfortunately, the only one was to a Facebook page, and that does not pass BLP prod. I see nothing in the article that indicates that the subject passes WP:BAND. I would point out that if this gets deleted, the User:Big Bossolo page should go too - and possible go anyway under U5. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic bitch[edit]

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

This article has a number of issues. Most prominently notability. The term is also a Neologism and not appropriate for inclusion in an Encyclopedia. Keithonearth (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic satisfies Wikipedia:Notability; the article already lists references from Paper, Time, NYMag, The American Reader, The Guardian, Vogue, and Forbes that are dedicated to the topic. The topic also satisfies WP:NEO, as (1) the phrase is in wide use, and (2) there are treatments in secondary sources. And the article satisfies the following paragraph, WP:WORDISSUBJECT, in that it does go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry; it provides history and commentary on the phrase, both with references. I agree that the article has "issues", in that a few sentences appear to include original research, but that problem can be corrected; it isn't a rationale for deletion. Melchoir (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SLANG and WP:NOT#DICT, "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SLANG isn't a rationale for deletion. WP:NOT#DICT is a rationale for deletion, but it doesn't apply to this article. It says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content." This article does contain more than a definition; it has already been expanded with additional encyclopedic content. Melchoir (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination complains that this is a neologism and I agree. The slang is a deletion issue because it's the article title, which unacceptably offensive and colloquial. The sources provided are shallow opinion pieces – routine tabloid journalism. The idea that liking Sex and the City is a key trait shows what junk this is. We're an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. Andrew D. (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's be precise about the issue. If by "neologism" you mean a phrase coined in the last five years, then yes, it's a phrase coined in the last five years. There is no policy on Wikipedia that says we can't or shouldn't have articles on such phrases. If you're referring specifically to WP:NEO, that policy does not apply to this article. The article draws on secondary sources that describe the phrase's existing popularity; it is not an attempt to popularize the phrase. Yes, the phrase "basic bitch" is offensive, but there is no policy that says titles should be censored, either. Compare the many specimens in Category:Pejorative terms for people. (Even if the article did need a new title, that's a job for WP:Requested moves, not a delete !vote at AfD.) Finally, the sources vary in how shallow they are; the articles from NYMag, Paper, and The American Reader aren't shallow at all. No one here is advocating that people who like Sex and the City should be denigrated on that basis. The fact that some people do so is tragic and stupid! But Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from describing trends just because they're tragic and stupid.
  I'm concerned that some of the negative responses to the article are motivated by the following logic: It's got a naughty word in it, and encyclopedias can't have naughty words, and the whole thing makes me feel bad, so let me think of a plausible-sounding excuse to kill it. Honestly, when I first saw that the article existed, I expected it to be garbage, too. But it's useful and informative, and there's enough depth in the sources to work with. Melchoir (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase may have been coined recently but the underlying concepts are not new. We already have content for the concept of being an ordinary person at average joe and man in the street. The idea of conforming to fashion trends is covered at pages such as fashion victim and designer label. We even have other neologisms covering similar ground such as normcore. Per WP:DICDEF, we shouldn't spawn new pages every time someone uses new slang to express existing ideas. I'm not persuaded that this phrase is precise enough or common enough to merit being a blue link. For another policy supporting this see WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those other articles are related, but they don't cover the same ground. The references describe "basic bitch" as a female identifier that suggests social and class privilege. Unless I've missed it, those sources don't argue that the phrase (or the people it targets) is synonymous with those other terms. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM applies to articles that attempt to be primary sources. This article is the opposite: a tertiary source that references secondary sources. Melchoir (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social and class privilege? I've no idea where you're getting that from as the phrase just seems to mean "ordinary woman", which is quite the opposite. The lead tells us that the phrase is ambiguous and so it seems that we don't have a clearly defined topic here. I still don't agree that the sources are adequate and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in Abby Schreiber's article. Now that you're aware of that, if I were to emphasize that point in the article, would it change your !vote? Melchoir (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Why is it when I look up extremely popular phrases from earlier decades, there isn't a wikipedia page dedicated to it? Jive and Chill Pill from the 80s don't warrant a page. Talking Head from the 60s. Submarine races from the 50s. These are just a couple random ones I threw into the search that came to mind, but I'm sure there's more. Point is, there's a much higher propensity to include these fad sayings into wikipedia before they've even had a chance to stand the test of time. I think this article should be deleted. Gtwy (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's impossible to decide whether a phrase warrants a Wikipedia article without searching for secondary sources covering that particular phrase! It has nothing to do with how popular the phrase is or was. For all you or I know, every one of those phrases does merit an article, and nobody has gotten around to writing one yet. Well, we don't need to guess about Basic bitch; sources have already been identified. The topic doesn't need to "stand the test of time". The sources aren't going anywhere. Melchoir (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That just sounds like an other stuff argument to me. ~ booyabazooka 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per User:Melchoir and User:Gtwy. Clubjustin4 (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir has advocated a "keep" position. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG – coverage includes New York, MTV, Salon, The Huffington Post, and Cosmopolitan. SLANG refers to article content, not article topics, and this article discusses the history of the term and interpretations of it, making it more than merely a dictionary entry. This nomination and the delete !votes reek of "just unencyclopedic" and "I don't like it". –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The biggest argument for deletion is WP:NEO, but that guideline says: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." However, as per Melchoir and Chase, there is enough coverage in secondary sources that prove that this is ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I waded into this 100% sure it was a non-notable neologism. Actually, I learned that is a notable neologism. Passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece. Nicely done article, by the way. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable neologism. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:47, 1 January 2015 (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 the sources found by Cunard, and the arguments for delete being based primarily on the lack of sources. I don't understand the argument for redirecting to another article (at least in terms of policy) that has a longer bio of him embedded in it. Surely the correct action, if the bio is to be kept at all, is to transfer it to the person's own article and use summary style in the other article. SpinningSpark 13:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeung Lai Chuen[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG, but as sources would be in Chinese, I may have missed something Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Notablilty not established by references but a redirect is plausible - looks like that was done previously.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Bak Mei which has a longer, sourced bio of him (his name there's romanised as Zhang Liquan). Only a single source for that entire article but that should be addressed there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This BLP has no sources and a redirect doesn't make sense because the Bak Mei article looks like a prime candidate for deletion since it has no independent sources.Jakejr (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was born in 1882 and died in 1964. This is not a BLP. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are two sources about the subject:
1. Martineau, Jr., Danny (2013). The Waterfront. Xlibris Corporation. p. 102. ISBN 978-1493147649. Retrieved 2015-01-01.
  The book notes:
  ...and a rare book called Pak Mei Kung Fu: White Eyebrow by H. B. Un. I purchased the book on sale for fewer than fifty dollars; it now sells for over eighty bucks online! Therein lies the story of Great Grand Master Cheung Lai Chuen, who in his youth was defeated in friendly combat by a Buddhist monk named Lin Sang. When Lin Sang would no teach him kung fu, Cheun Lai sought out Lin Sang's teacher Joke Fat Wan. After much persistency, Joke Fat taught Cheung Lai Pak Mei kung fu.
  Joke Fat was a third-generation sifu and student of Gwong Wei, who was the sole student of Pak Mei, himself founder of the art. Pak Mei was one of the five legendary survivors of the Southern Shaolin Temple that had been destroyed. The book goes on to tell how Cheung Lai Chuen rose to become the Great Grand Master and once defended himself against a town of fifty men. After speaking of much form and technique, H. B. Un concludes the book with a piece of wisdom: fighting is dangerous and should be avoided!
  This source indicates that the subject has received significant coverage in the book Pak Mei Kung Fu: White Eyebrow.
2. The subject is also mentioned here.
It is highly likely that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
It would be Wikipedia:Systemic bias to delete this article about a notable Chinese martial artist when there is likely significant coverage about the subject in offline non-English sources, which are permitted per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing non-English sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2015 (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 all. This discussion included (short) articles, redirects and a template. I am all for due process and evidently I acknowledge that there are specific venues for the redirects and a template; yet I believe keeping the discussion together is better, given that they are linked. Accordingly I ignored that rule, while closing this, and also declided a few speedy deletion requests days ago. I am also closing the related discussions at wp:RfD. - Nabla (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL)[edit]

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

non-notable fictional or entities with limited Reliable Sources to justify an article Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. These titles constitute self promotion by a terrorist group, so they should not even stay as redirects:

These last two articles listed are headed for deletion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_(ISIL)

a list of 1 person and conflicts with community consensus to not call ISIL a caliphate without qualification

Related action to delete three redirects on above articles [1] for similar reason I seek to delete the pages.

List_of_Islamic_State_Wilayahs was previously deleted. Wilayat Hama (ISIL) has been deleted 2x already.

Delete CatsAreGods93 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles due to the lack of notability. Noteswork (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Some of them are already nominated for deletion. Look at Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL) and Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL). Some of the redirects are also nominated. Mhhossein (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "creator" of all these junk articles was just blocked indefinitely under the WP:NOTHERE criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Atifabbasi8_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_Indeffed.29 Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all- not parts of any recognized government and so fail the criteria of places, no significant coverage by third party sources, only a blog and sometimes a "government press" self published book by the very involved primary party seeking self promotion and recognition fail GNG. as "places" they are subject to SPEEDY as all having existing articles under the standard name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all without a second look at them. Not notable in any way. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL) and Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL) have been deleted after successful earlier deletion nominations. ISIL Caliphate was deleted under A-10 by Alexf Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete all None of the listed articles/redirects/template subjects are at all notable. Additionally, the presence of these wilayat is unduly promotional of ISIL's territorial claims, which is justification for deletion per section 4 of WP:RFD#DELETE. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL) now nominated for deletion as well (missed on above list, as has different creator). Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL) (not listed above) and Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL) (listed above) two were justed deleted after discussion. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Legacypac: is this a deletion proposal for Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL) alone, or you are proposing the deletion of the whole bunch of redirects, articles and templates above?GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Greyshark09 as per the top section, second line, delete everything. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that here you can propose only deletion of articles; deletion of redirects and templates should be proposed separately in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion?GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but where is that a rule? Surely the fact these are all very closely connected makes it logical to deal with these together in one discussion as all the other editors above are doing, and as you yourself suggested on one deletion discussion? There is only one template anyway and when these are deleted it will have no more content. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beitler[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. His main assertion of WP:NOTABILITY seems to be as a WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 22:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 22:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 22:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete big time GNG fail DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not notable as an author. Books in few libraries a/c world cat, and not published by a regular publisher. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references; PhD from a school ranked #904 among business schools in the USA. [2]. And his publisher, Practitioner Press International, seems to have only published his books. Go to the site [3] and type in any name ("Smith" "Johnson") and no matter what the search you retrieve his two books. (It may be time to create a list of fake publishing houses for WP. Although it could be a very long page.) LaMona (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, I can't find anything significant to meet the subject assertion of notability, particularly WP:AUTHOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McEvoy[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. C 679 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG... This article was previously deleted by PROD. JMHamo (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHAL Foundation[edit]

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

No reliable sources to support the notability of this organization. Article appears to have been created by the founder of this organization, whose vanity bio is also up for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only see one passing mention in an RS. Not notable. NickCT (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -subject qualifies deletion for failing WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deletion G4. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash R Sandilya[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity bio created by the subject. Borderline speedy-deletable given that there are no reliable sources whatsoever to support WP:BIO notability guidelines. Only claim to fame is the founding of a non-notable charity which has also been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant vanity/self-promotion. No immediately obvious significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4: A previous autobiography was deleted after AfD just a month ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Sandilya. Inserting a middle initial is insufficient to overcome community consensus. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G4. Another target for deletion would be Prakash Ranjan (BJP), which was also created by User:Prakash Sandilya and is a redirect to Prakash R Sandilya. Cannolis (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a11 made up, g11 ad (for author's domain name, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual vision[edit]

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

An apparently made up term, with zero sources to show otherwise. Prod was removed without explanation. —Swpb ^talk 15:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia, and this is my first and I guess also the last article here, therefore I didn't know even how to provide an explanation after removing the prod. Yes, you are right, Swpb, it is a made up term and I have no sources too, but it logically has to be a valid article, even though it's extremely short. It's made of words sexual and vision. I'm sorry again if there is a policy that says all articles must have at least one source or a certain number of sentences... sexual.vision ^talk 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC+01)

"logically has to be a valid article" Incorrect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it covers existing, notable topics – things you invented that no one else recognizes are not valid topics for encyclopedia articles. Please read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verification, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It is possible for very short articles to meet the criteria for inclusion, but that is not the case here. —Swpb ^talk 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the things you invented that no one else recognizes are not valid topics for encyclopedia articles, but why should no one else recognize a term I've made up? Yes, I admit, I made this term up and I am proud of it, but why should no one recognize it? Only because I have made this up and anyone else has not? I have sexual visions since my childhood, as a healthy human being should have. What is incorrect about it? sexual.vision ^talk 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC+01)

The answer to your question is in the policies I've just directed you to. These policies are the result of community consensus, and this encyclopedia would not function without them. —Swpb ^talk 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, I am just trying to appeal to the logic which you are apparently keep missing. Sexual vision is a made up term, but it deserves to be an article, I have written the first sentence of it and I don't have the knowledge of more yet. Or at least I don't have the knowledge in the written form, to be more accurate, English is my 3rd language and I am in a kind of time pressure in these months... Seems I have no choice and try to explain more about how sexual visions can be profound in one's motivation level. I am a 27 years old human male and I am still a virgin, I have been online most of the time since I got my first computer when I was 18 years old, but I was poor and didn't like high school either, so I tried to scalp online casinos for their withdrawable bonuses playable on blackjack, I earned a few tens thousands of dollars and lived from it since 2008 until all my money was gone. I had been searching a female life partner via internet in Asia while I am in Europe, and it had ruined me since I had sent a one girl from the Philippines cca 10k U.S. dollars, my mom kicked me out, I had been jailed once and two times in the mental hospital because they thought I went crazy from being too much time closed at home and being online, I have made facebook owners aware of myself since I posted a naked video of the girl who has robbed me, I have made Michelle Phan fall in love with me, along with hundreds of other girls in the world and in the end of this year I have made up the term sexual vision after buying a billion dollar domain name of the same name 9 days ago. And all thanks to the sexual visions I have had since my childhood that became stronger and clearer over time until the present day... Maybe I am not the only one who has been tremendously affected by her or his sexual visions... Just a brief summary. If you still believe I am mistaken and this article shall be taken down, I will not argue anymore, I am exhausted so much in my life already. Thank you in advance for understanding, or at least for trying to. sexual.vision ^talk 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC+01)

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. Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Lauer[edit]

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

Junior officer awarded a couple of medals. No real reason for notability. Contested prod. While some may think he qualifies for an article due to being awarded the Virtuti Militari, note that it comes in five grades; the Silver Cross, which he received, is the lowest grade, and tens of thousands have been awarded. It's hardly in the same league as the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor. It's probably actually in the same league as the Military Cross or Silver Star, if that. Just because the highest grade of an honour is the highest award a country can give does not mean that every grade of the same honour is notable. The Cross of Valour is even commoner - well over 100,000 have been awarded. Recipients of neither qualify for articles. This article seems to have been written by one of his relatives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG, et al. I was originally going to write up a keep per his Virtuti Militari but your comment preempted that; does not qualify for WP:SOLDIER (1). Deadbeef 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We are keeping all recipients of the Iron Cross (I tried to AfD few of them before), so I don't see what's different here. Ping User:Halibutt, who worked on this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we're not? We're keeping all recipients of the Knight's Cross (although we probably shouldn't, given over 7,000 were awarded in a single war), but not the Iron Cross (millions of which were awarded). Rather a different thing. Can you point me towards the AfDs you mention? We certainly do not keep all recipients of the Military Cross or Silver Star, or even the Distinguished Service Order or Distinguished Service Cross (United States) (which are higher than anything Lauer received), many of whom have been deleted at AfD. I fail to see why Poland (or Germany) should be a special case, when much more highly-decorated Commonwealth and American servicemen have been deleted. If they have been kept, it clearly shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how multi-grade honours work. I have previously also heard it argued that all recipients of every grade of the Légion d'honneur should be kept, as it is the "highest honour France can award" and thus passes WP:SOLDIER. This is of course patent rubbish. The higher grades do; the lower grades do not. If we decide that all grades do, then it clearly discriminates against countries which award multiple different honours instead of different grades of the same honour (a recipient of the Military Cross or Silver Star isn't notable because they're standalone awards, but a recipient of the Iron Cross 1st Class or Silver Cross of the Virtuti Militari, awarded for approximately the same level of gallantry, is notable because it's a grade of a multi-grade honour whose higher grades constitute the highest honour of that country - that makes no logical sense whatsoever and is clearly against the spirit, and also really the letter, of WP:SOLDIER). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really not sure. WP:SOLDIER's point no. 1 is apparently a very crude tool, and especially so because of the "only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies" remark. The problem is, various high-level awards are hardly comparable: you say DSO and DSC are higher than the highest Polish military decoration, I wouldn't agree to that. But even when sticking to highest decorations mentioned in WP:SOLDIER (think Legion of Honour), on one hand this means that roughly 2900 people who received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour are eligible - people of all grades and classes mind you. Now let's compare it to the total number of people who received the highest class of Virtuti Militari. 2 people for 1806-1815 period (Poniatowski and Davout), zero for 1815-1831 period (and only one 2nd class - to Jan Skrzynecki), six in the 1914-1939 period (Piłsudski, Ferdinand Foch, Ferdinand I of Romania, Albert I of Belgium, Alexander I of Yugoslavia and Victorio Emanuele III), and finally 13 people for the 1939-1945 period (none awarded by Poland, all 13 by the commies - to various Soviet and Soviet-aligned officers (check the list here). You get my point? The highest tier of the Virtuti Militari was awarded only 21 times throughout history - and only to highest-ranking officials who are already encyclopedic even without it. And in the case of VM the problem is that most classes are tied to recipient's rank.

Having said that, I'm not sure this particular recipient is notable enough, I could hardly find any sources mentioning his military career at all. But I would consider deleting the article based on scarcity of sources, not on the rank of the medal he received. //Halibu tt 20:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't say anywhere that only the highest grade is inherently notable; I said the higher grades. Neither did I say anywhere that the DSO and DSC are superior to the Virtuti Militari. I said they were superior to the Silver Cross of the Virtuti Militari - far rarer awards from countries that have been at war far more than Poland has. But I think we should assume that an award of at least the Golden Cross is necessary for inherent notability. From 1920, only 478 of these (and 85 higher grades) have been awarded. Although we need to be careful for earlier awards, as 1,794 Golden Crosses were awarded for the 1830/31 November Uprising alone. It is probably therefore reasonable to assume that at least a Knight's Cross is required for inherent notability in the 19th century. And remember we're only talking inherent notability here of course - recipients of lower awards can of course still be notable on a case-by-case basis (this gentleman, however, appears to be notable only for his award). But over 10,000 Silver Crosses were awarded for the Second World War alone (about the same number of Military Crosses awarded throughout the British Empire, although the MC was of course only awarded to junior officers and warrant officers for actions on land - however, given the comparative size of the Polish and Empire forces it's probably a reasonable equation). Compared to 181 Victoria Crosses for the entire British Empire, with far larger forces committed in far more campaigns than the Poles. I think that amply demonstrates that we can't possibly say that receipt of the Virtuti Militari makes one inherently notable. About 11,000 Poles inherently notable for gallantry in WWII against 200 odd British Empire people (when we factor in the George Cross and Empire Gallantry Medal as well)? Er, no! How is that in any way logical? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice against recreation. There is simply not enough information to judge the notability. Yes, he was awarded. But for what? No sources with in-depth coverage. -M.Altenmann >t 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anybody really considers this a plausible search term, they are free to editorially create the redirect. Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"D" Is for Dubby – The Lustmord Dub Mixes[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a remix album that appears to rely on notability by inheritance from an artist who also appears on the face of it to rely on notability by inheritance. This article is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, as a remix and as lack of coverage. -M.Altenmann >t 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puscifer as a plausible search term. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. enough consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Non Originale[edit]

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

Is this article encylopedic or a car club definition that should be in a dictionary? It reads like an opinion piece Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to have been something that someone came up with one day and it just never really caught on as a term. It possibly could be deleted as WP:A11, although there are just enough hits coming up to where this could be debated. Either way, I don't see where this term is particularly noteworthy enough to warrant an entry and I'm also concerned about what appears to be a strong WP:COI by the article's creator- especially given the somewhat promotional tone of the article. (This was likely done in an attempt to make the club and term seem more notable as opposed to out and out promotion, FWIW.) Even the club itself doesn't seem to really pass notability guidelines either, so turning this into an article about the club rather than the term doesn't really seem to be an option here. Other than a few mentions in various forums (which cannot be used as reliable sources) and various routine database listings for the club, there really is nothing out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, even if the term is used by a handful of people this does not automatically mean that the term is notable or that the club is notable because it exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gbawden and Tokyogirl79. Rather than trying to delete a legitimate article, will you please help us with suggestions on how to make it more clear?

Scuderia Non Originale is both a club with worldwide membership and an attitude that describes a great many collectible car enthusiasts throughout the world. In our view, the club isn't important at all. Any link to the club's page can be deleted. What counts in the minds of auto enthusiasts, of which there are millions, is the "non originale" attitude and the open expression of it. By using the club's name generically, it became easy to quickly communicate an attitude in the long-running debate between "original only" car enthusiasts and those who like to modify their vehicles, the "non originale" types. This original versus non originale debate is huge in the auto world. Therefore, it is not of small importance among auto enthusiasts that Scuderia Non Originale -- the club and the generic phrase -- gives voice to car enthusiasts around the world. Non originale enthusiasts are constantly being pressured by the legalistic original types and, in fact, are not even allowed to compete for awards at any major car show for classic and collectible automobiles.

On an entirely different level, we are surprised and stunned that you can simply delete the article because we haven't met a Wiki guideline we don't understand ... or because people who are not auto enthusiasts don't understand the phenomenon the article describes. One of you wrote: "This appears to have been something that someone came up with one day and it just never really caught on as a term." That is patently untrue and contrary to evidence. When you wanted to delete the Scuderia Non Originale article last time, we responded by easily finding 10 sources that use "scuderia non originale" and "non originale" as generic terms to describe modified cars. One of you countered by claiming that comments in car forums don't count. That's a personal opinion that flies in the face of reality.

First, your comment ignores the fact that the forum references are from different people on different continents, writing across a 10-year timeframe. Second, auto forums are where auto enthusiasts go to exchange information and discuss their hobby. Auto forums are exactly where one should expect to find automotive terminology being used. You wouldn't go to a baseball game to learn about the language of ballet, but you can go to forums about baseball to learn the language of baseball. Obviously, the same holds true for the auto world. If you want to know the language of car people, you hang out with them, including in their forums.

As for promoting the Club, it collects no dues or fees of any type and the only products found on the site are club stickers that are offered for a $3 donation to cover the cost of postage -- and which allow those who buy them to flaunt their "non originale" attitude. Given that the club doesn't appear to be promoted, and a Wikipedia listing isn't likely to bring it new members, promotion probably should not enter into the discussion.

What we should be discussing, in our view, is how to make the article better fit into Wikipedia. The article presents a good example of how generic terms come into use. It isn't often one can pinpoint the use of new terms so clearly. If your goal is to hold Wikipedia's articles to a high standard, we applaud you. Please don't kill our article; help us improve it. If you have some other reason for not wanting this article included, please share it. We are at a loss as to what is happening here. ScuderiaNOman (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about forums is that they aren't usable as reliable sources in the slightest, not per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now having a lot of chatter on forums can make it more likely that something will gain coverage in reliable sources (newspapers, news shows, magazines, articles on reliable websites) but forum posts do not give notability. At best all it shows is that something is popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR), but at worst it's pretty much just a bunch of people talking in a forum and because it is so incredibly easy for people to make fake forum posts to promote a topic, Wikipedia does not consider this to give notability. Don't take this to mean that I think that the club is making fake posts, it's just that people have done this in the past to try to gain credibility on Wikipedia and failed in the process to where it's been considered a non-usable source since almost the inception of Wikipedia. I think that at most it can be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source, but that's only when it's the official person/organization commenting and we can verify that it is them. Now when it comes to discussing how to make the article better fit into Wikipedia, the issue is that since the club and phrase have not received coverage in reliable sources, there's no place for this article on Wikipedia at this point in time and there's really no way to improve it right now because I can pretty much guarantee that it will be deleted. I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh because it's really not my intention to sound as such- it's just that other than a few random people talking about the phrase and mentioning the club in a few forums, this isn't really talked about by anyone in any place that would be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... the issue is that since the club and phrase have not received coverage in reliable sources ..."

It appears that you are not familiar with the San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley's main source of news for more than 50 years. It also appears that you are not familiar with VeloceToday, the very popular on-line magazine for Italian and French car enthusiasts. I know both because I am a car enthusiast who understands not only cars, but the language of the automotive world. If you were to look me up in the Library of Congress, you would find a number of books and magazines edited by me. Six of my books have been sold to automobile mechanics for decades. Just as you didn't mean to sound harsh, I don't mean to brag, only to point out that I've made a living with words for a long, long time. You write that a few people on the internet are not enough to provide credibility for the Scuderia article. I agree, so I'm going to suggest that before you do anything else, you go to the SNO website and take a look at how many countries are represented by its members: http://www.gwandrw.com/sno-membership-list/ When editing copy about a subject you know little or nothing about, you cannot be accurate or effective without first doing your homework. In this case, that includes examining the quality of the forums that are listed in the article. Discounting them without knowing anything about them is very poor form, even on a volunteer website like Wikipedia. By actually checking out the listed sources and SNO content, you'll find that people from all over the world hunt down the club to sign up. That alone should be enough to convince a fair-minded person that the SNO article describes a movement of consequence. If that's still not enough to save the article, perhaps it's time to discuss how words acquire new meanings and popular phrases are coined. Having been in publishing for many years, I can tell you that our English lexicon is not defined in the staff meetings of "reliable source" publications. Individuals determine how words are used as they communicate with one another about things that matter to them. Whether the words are first used in a popular movie or in a popular forum is not what matters. What counts is how many people begin to apply the new meaning to a word or phrase. I expect that very few major media sources will ever use "non originale" because very few major sources cover in depth things that matter to we who are automotive enthusiasts. Fortunately, clubs and forums exist to take up the slack. In closing, your honor, I'd like the article to remain on Wiki, but if it doesn't, so be it. ScuderiaNOman

PS -- Almost forgot to mention that Anna-Louise Felstead, the artist whose work graces a number of SNO's web pages, is now part of the cast of a popular British reality TV series. Does that make her a reliable source for speaking to the significance of SNO? Or how about Guy Allen, a second artist -- an internationally known cartoonist-illustrator at that -- who allows SNO to use many of his automotive illustrations because he is a "non originale" guy, like the rest of SNO's members? Does he qualify as a reliable source? Guy's work appears in at least three major automotive magazines on a monthly basis. He and Anna-Louise would be hurt to learn they are not reliable in the eyes of Wiki's editorial volunteers. You don't want to hurt their feelings, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScuderiaNOman (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Felstead would not be considered a reliable source since her artwork is used on the SNO's webpages. This would make her a WP:PRIMARY source since it would be in her best interests to not only talk about SNO, but to talk about it in a positive manner. So would anyone else that is involved with the club as a whole, as primary sources cannot show notability. As for the San Jose Mercury News source, all you did was post a name and a newspaper. We have no way of knowing if this was an article about the club, if it was a letter to the editor, a brief WP:TRIVIAL mention, or anything to this extent. I couldn't find anything on the newspaper's website when I put in the words "Scuderia Non Originale" or "Non Originale". (If you can find an archived version on Highbeam or a similar news archiving site, that can help show that the article could be usable.) You can't just say that there is coverage in something and then not provide anything about the source because not all newspaper mentions are equal. Yes, the San Jose Mercury News is typically considered to be a reliable source in many instances but the paper also posts things like routine mentions of events, letters to the editor, articles written by someone involved with the topic at hand, and other things that are not considered to be in-depth enough to show notability for a subject like the subject only getting a brief passing mention in an article about a more general topic. There's a pretty long list of things that can make something from an otherwise reliable source unusable to show notability. Also, when it comes to websites being popular does not always make it a reliable source. The site has to undergo a fairly rigorous and verifiable editorial process and even if it would pass muster at WP:RS/N (to be fair, I'll run it through the noticeboard), that would pretty much be the only verifiable source on the article. The others are all either completely unverifiable or they're just not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of anyone in your club, the forums, or those websites, but Wikipedia is pretty strict about what is or isn't considered to be usable as a reliable source. Forums aren't usable, neither are any primary sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, we should probably move this to the article talk page since this is taking up a lot of room on the AfD space. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage in independent sources. -M.Altenmann >t 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Uruguay relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, neither country has a resident ambassador, no evidence of significant migration, agreements or state visits. Article claims trade is significant yet looking at the source bilateral trade was a meagre USD70 million in 2012, many companies do more trade in one day. Article has the vague statement "opportunities lying ahead are enormous" which is identical to a line in India–Uruguay relations LibStar (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a trade agreement from 1987, which I will include straight away. --Fadesga (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please read another addition: the UCUDAL promoting Thai culture in Uruguay. --Fadesga (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is one agreement, the relationship is not subject to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, verifiable information. The amounts don't matter. -M.Altenmann >t 18:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Withholding rationale, not required according to rules. I hope my opinion is not discounted. I don't believe this article should be deleted. -- GreenC 14:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. interesting that for someone who primarily edits literature related articles suddenly pops up on a bilateral relations AfD without even any genuine attempt of proving notability which you do in literature afds... Any reason why? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recommended "course of action" is to keep and improve the article because I think it's a notable topic that can be improved. "who primarily edits literature related articles", you wish. The real issue here is the nom's attempt to discredit and discourage participation by bringing in contradictory and controversial essays that have no consensus. -- GreenC 16:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the real reason you came here is because you ddisliked myself marking an article you created as having notability concerns. [4]. Within 30 mins you suddenly appear at your first bilateral AfD with a vote with no argument. If you made a genuine attempt to find sosources or construct an argument I'd believe you, but I'm sure the closing admin will take into account your behavior here. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your edit to that article, checked your recent edit history and happened upon this AfD, that's one of my normal ways to discover pages to work on and improve the project. And I didn't initially make a detailed explanation because I don't have a lot of experience with bilateral topics, but notability is reason enough. It's not true that my vote was made in bad faith, I could have voted either way but believe this article should be kept - I usually vote Keep and anyway it's in-line with how everyone else who voted so far, it would be more surprising had I voted Delete. -- GreenC 15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

given the much more substantial delete arguments below, it really is no longer in line with everyone else. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of experience with bilateral topics little or no experience? In the time spent discussing here, you could have easily constructed an argument for notability, I would have assumed good faith if you produced a decent argument instead of a lame "withholding rationale " no closing admin will take that seriously. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already said "notability" above which is perfectly valid in particular with the number of sources. Since you keep assuming bad faith and trying to influence the closing admin ("no closing admin will take that") there's nothing more to say. -- GreenC 17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - diplomatic relationships between countries are not inherently notable; like everything else, we still require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. A single trade MoU between the two is not a signifier of a significant diplomatic relationship, nor is the existence of mutual diplomatic representatives. The sources in question, as far as I can tell, talk about Uruguay's economic opportunities in the region in general, not in Thailand specifically. The suggestion that $70 million in trade is "significant" is nonsense but even actually significant trade wouldn't make the diplomatic relationship inherently notable. There is no detailed analysis of the value of one country to the other, the history of their relationship, mutual involvement in conflicts, etc. The fact that mutual membership of broad international collectives has been included speaks volumes about the lack of any actual relationship between the two. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You cane easily fit this into Foreign relations of Thailand#Rest of world and Foreign relations of Uruguay#Asia. Also, I have never heard of Uruguay and Thailand's relations in the news ever. If I read the Current events portals (since I usually try looking for modern history of countries), I don't think I would find anything relating to them. If anything happens in future that is big between the two, maybe we should have the page again. Also, this has been talked about before. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we keep this then we might as well create an article on Sealand–Republic of Molossia relations or Freetown Christiana–Hutt River relations. Kidding and WP:OSE aside, relations between the two countries are rather insignificant, limited to a few trade-related things and not much else, clearly not enough for a separate article. A merge to Foreign relations of Uruguay is possible, but either way there's really not much between the two countries. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither country even has an ambassador in the other, but has it as a shared responsibility for an ambassador to a nearby major country. I've supported many of these, but not when the link is as weak as it is here. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Port 3979[edit]

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

An article about a particular port makes no sense, it seems like an excuse to spam the link, presented as reference, because that is the default port used by OpenTTD. The article does not talk about what a communication port is. It does not make a claim to why that particular port is notable (which in my opinion is not). If it is not deleted, then it should be redirected to Port (computer networking).Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no explanation why a small nook or cranny needs a separate article. -M.Altenmann >t 19:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I'd consider it if this was an officially-assigned port, but it looks like an arbitrary choice for this particular game. Nothing else to say about it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even popular and much more notable ports like Port 8080 and Port 20 don't have their own page. Port 80 is the only one I found, which exists on a disambiguation page as a link to TCP Port. The point is that there is no indication that Port 3979 is notable and there is no precedent to indicate any particular port is notable enough for its own page. I wouldn't even suggest a redirect, since we already have a list of TCP Ports, and it runs in the tens of thousands. Creating a redirect for every one of those would be a drain of resources and pointless. Yet if we do for this, why not the others? DiscantX (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with DiscantX (talk · contribs), a redirect does not make too much sense.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well, "OpenTTD game" is already listed in the aforementioned list under both Ports 3978 and 3979. That should be sufficient to represent it. DiscantX (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per DiscantX. Mentioning it in the list is enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burns (communications professional)[edit]

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

CEO of BullFight Strategies (1-10 person PR firm according to LinkedIn). Citations in the current article are brief mentions, media quotes and self-authored. Nothing comes up in a search in the leading trade magazine, PRWeek.[5] or in O'Dwyers[6] CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the subject does not rest upon his present occupation, but on his earlier position as president of Media Matters, in which capacity he was a regular target of ultra conservative groups. Full disclosure: I created the first version of the article. --Lambiam 02:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The sources here are very weak - a press release from his own company, HuffPost, a light-weight interview, one line in an article about Jon Stewart... If his main claim to fame is having been president of Media Matters then this should be redirected there. I also notice that he is not listed in the "Staff" section, but as former president there could surely be a sentence for him in that section with the dates of his position. LaMona (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No meaningful information whatsoever beyond holding a post and a couple of his rants. -M.Altenmann >t 19:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Obasi[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. The references given, apart from being unreliable do not focus on the subject. I tried to use google, but nothing relevant came up either. The subject has directed one notable film, and that makes his name pop up in google searches....but all the articles only talk about his film, and just mention his name as the director and that's it; according to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited.Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: He has directed very few notable films, but that does not translate to him being notable. The only reason why I'm making this weak is because I am not sure if directors of notable films are automatically regarded as being notable themselves. Darreg (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:– Subject of the article meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR as a creative professional whose work has received significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. The subject of the article is a director of a notable film called Ojuju that won the, "2014 Best Nigerian Film" award at Africa International Film Festival. The subject of the article also directed Jim & Joan, an award-winning film at the 3rd Eko International Film Festival. The subject of the article is a creative professional I don't think his notability is inherited. Cases of WP:NOTINHERITED includes examples like "She models for Calvin Klein", "He is a son of Barrack Obama", "He is a friend of Patrick Sawyer" and so on.

The subject of the article is a Creative professional.

A creative professional may be included in the encyclopedia if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which the subject has obviously met. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This subject doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO; he hasn't received a well-known and significant award or honor, neither has he been nominated for one several times. AFRIFF is a notable festival, but its award ceremony is not prestigious. Eko Film festival is barely notable, talkless of its awards. Then again, the subject has not made any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in filmmaking or even Nigerian cinema, as stipulated...so how does he pass this criteria?

The WP:DIRECTOR doesn't state anything like what you wrote - "a creative professional whose work has received significant coverages in multiple reliable sources". You are also saying it passes the third criteria of WP:DIRECTOR...can you please state his work that has become so "significant/well known" that it is used as "the subject of an independent book [..] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How as it fails WP:ANYBIO? Is the award ceremony not part of the AFRIFF festival? If no, then what makes up the festival? WP:ANYBIO#2 stipulated that a subject is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" are you saying that Ojuju is not a well recognize work of the subject? The Book and review you mention above applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST And probably to WP:JOURNALIST

For WP:DIRECTOR– a Director may be notable, if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent feature-length film".

What you stated above that it is usedas "the subject of an independent book [..] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? Could probably applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST and WP:JOURNALIST who are writers but certainly not strictly to WP:DIRECTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't answer the questions! Rather you now claim the criteria (which you cited your self) do not apply to WP:DIRECTOR.... And No, Ojuju isn't significant enough to make its director automatically notable; it is just a random notable film; it hasn't received wide critical acclaim, no book adaptations (like The Figurine's case), no educational studies on it, no critical analyses, no prestigious awards (like The AMAAs) in a big category (like best film), no periodic comic books on the film....actually, NOTHING!!! It's just notable like any other film, nothing more to make it a "Well known/significant" film.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never cited any criteria on my own. The criteria I cited above was adapted from the original criteria. I only tried to break it down for better understanding. The fact that WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST WP:JOURNALIST, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ARTIST are govern by similar guidelines per "CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL" does not mean there are no specificity. Don't ignore the use of Or in the guideline. From criteria 3, feature-length film is highly specific for WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ARTIST and may not necessarily applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST WP:JOURNALIST. Do you mean that the work of an "Economist" must be a suject of feature-length film to be notable? But you will agree with me that the work of an "Economist" and "AUTHOR must be the subject of an independent book or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews to be notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

works of authors get adapted into feature-length films/TV series, while works of filmmakers get adapted into independent books or comics / spin off TV series / get a remake etc. And my point is for a creative professional, without independent focused coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable, his works must have been very significant, and not just notable!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per wikicology's argument. I can sense a WP:COI and I quite agree that the article needs a rewrite. — Note to closing Admin: Samatics (talk • contribs) joined Wikipedia on 22 December 2014 and has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to interpret WP:CREATIVE for film to mean 1 clearly notable film, or multiple barely notable ones. As his film won a national level award, it's clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The film is barely notable, as is the festival, but I can imagine people trying to find information on the title and the director. The bio requires serious work, though. kashmiri ^TALK 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:V for this BLP having no reliable sources, which mandates deletion. If reliable sources are found that cover the core of the content, the article should be kept because the subject appears notable, but the article needs rewriting. Sandstein 10:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satari (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, a hatnote is more appropriate. Prod removed. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some people called Sattari to add. "Satari" is mentioned as a type of roof in List of roof shapes, as a character in List of The Bionic Woman episodes, and as a crown Lakshmi_Kumara_Thathachariar but I haven't been able to verify these. Siuenti (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - my poor WP:BEFORE. Merry Christmas, Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcecon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage, the only source given is an article about LinkedIn whose coverage of Sourceone is the phrase "says Jeremy Roberts, editor of Sourcecon, a blog and conference series for recruiters". McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. -M.Altenmann >t 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The original nomination can be viewed here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kandala[edit]

Nomination withdrawn - please close Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honebuto Hoshin[edit]

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

Looks like an attempt to translate the ja:WP article ja:骨太の方針 (honebuto-no-hōshin), for some reason changing the Japanese title. Unless 'honebuto hoshin' is actually in use in English, the title should be something understandable, like "Foundation policy" or whatever. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Cleanup. Link from other Japanese internal politics article, to ensure visibility and hence cleanup Poor choice of title is not the reason for deletion. -M.Altenmann >t 19:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English options include "Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Structural Reform" (per Tokyo Metropolitan Government, here), "Basic Policies" (from Tomohiko Shinoda's Contemporary Japanese Politics: Institutional Changes and Power Shifts here), or "Robust Policy," closer to a literal translation, which is found in Glen Hook's book Contested Governance in Japan: Sites and Issues. This is also evidence that there is coverage in English establishing notability, so keep. Dekimasuよ! 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I see these points. But 骨太の方針 is not a topic, it is a slogan, and WP is not a dictionary. It would be appropriate to mention the slogan somewhere in the article on recent Japanese government policy. I feel that there are vastly too many articles in en:WP which are simply listings of foreign (Japanese in particular). Also, the English of the article is so bad that it would generally be easier to start again. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why you decided it is a slogan? even it were, there are wp articles on slogans; we have a full Category:Slogans of them. Also, English is never a reason for deletion. Not to say that the article is quite informative. -M.Altenmann >t 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The English is not that great. But I copy edited one paragraph, and although it's still not great it only took about 10 minutes. It shouldn't take that long to do the rest. About the topic, whatever it may have meant originally, by now I think it's just the customary name for the policy adopted by the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy, namely the LDP's official policy. It doesn't matter that much what we call it. If there are problems with the article name we can discuss it on the Talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an essay, possibly part of the ongoing Kyoto University class assignment, and it is still not clear to me what the article is actually trying to explain. --DAJF (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I think it's trying to explain the term. People who read the news in Japanese see this a lot and many will probably wonder what the heck is a "thick-boned policy"? Takenaka, who was Koizumi's chief policy adviser, recently wrote this explanation, which I have added to ja:骨太の方針. Amid the ongoing struggle between politicians and bureaucrats for control of the budget, this is the policy statement of the politicians' side. Understanding this helps make sense of the news. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Exactly, it's an attempt to explain a Japanese term, which is helpful to Japanese readers. But WP is not Wiktionary, and WP is here to describe topics, such as "Japanese government financial policy", not buzzwords. If there is "valuable political information" here, it belongs somewhere else -- in fact the first "History" paragraph (which perhaps you copy-edited) makes it clear that the real topic here is the CEFP, who are the people who use the buzzword. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment – That's a point. The name is pretty incomprehensible. Chapter 3 of the book that I added to References is good on the CEFP and Koizumi's "big-boned reform agenda", as the author calls it. For copyright reasons I linked to the JSTOR version, but there's an online version of chapter 3 here. That could be a topic, as opposed to just a term. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poor title leaves the non-Japanese reader at a loss, but there is valuable political information here. A need for copy editing is not a justification for deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, but as others have noted, that is not a reason for deletion. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs a cleanup, not outright deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Killing of Dave Owen Ward. No real notability here, but as long as the article on the killing exists, a redirect there seems reasonable. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Moore (actor)[edit]

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

Person of minor notability - biography now primary notability is to report the manslaughter of Dave Oren Ward, which is not a reason for an life story/biography article, I suggest adding a note to the dead persons article - check, there is already detail there. This is the version that User:Neptune's Trident created - it was 95 percent a controversy section and imo it is/was a violation of WP:BLP, undue weight/primary focus in a life story on a criminal offense when his life story is so minimal and has no possible chance of being expanded - I note also that Dave Oren Ward is of very limited notability also and that User:Neptune's Trident was the creator and main contributor to that wikipedia biography - Govindaharihari (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article closedly associated with this one has also been listed for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Oren Ward. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable with reliable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge - I spent some time editing and expanding this article and agree that its "light on substance". The nominator makes a good point about this and the article for Dave Oren Ward, so I suggest that they be merged with regard to the subject matter that links them or merged into an appropriate article such as Road rage or something relating to the subjects involved. There is no reason that Wikipedia should lose the information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the REVIEWING Admin - I was uninvolved in this matter until I saw this post on the BLP Noticeboard. I then reviewed the article and edited it along with a related article for Dave Oren Ward, Moor's victim, and an associated Disambiguation page, Nathaniel_Moore_(disambiguation). Users Hemi.pwr, Shark310, Neptune's Trident, Govindaharihari, and an IP (72.199.48.165) have been edit warring over various content to the point where I don't know who wants or does not want "what" in the article. BUT, none of them are uninvolved at this point and this should be taken into consideration. I would still very much like to know the extent of User Hemi.pwr's claim (below) with regard to the primary source as it would make issue far easier to decide if it turns out to be non-WP:RS. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"COMMENT TO REVIEWING ADMIN"- I feel like it is intellectually dishonest for user scalhotrod to claim neutrality on this issue, considering the fact that this user reverted/revised this rather obscure article NINE times in less than THREE hours. It would Appear that even scalhotrod is personally "involved" on some level. In any case, two film credits in 16 years doesn't make for note worthiness as an actor, and a 16 year old "manslaughter" or "self defense killing" or whatever it was that Happened in 1999 between those guys, I'm sorry but it's not worthy of wikipedias attention. Please don't anybody "sue" me, I'm only speaking my opinion, but imo as for the deceased in this case, who had a grand total of four credits in all low-budget, unheard-of, and obscure 90s indie films Well I think, dead as he may be, there's not much chance of him making much more of an impact, noteworthy-speaking... It would probably be a good idea to nominate that "article" for deletion as well. Wikipedia isn't the place to light a candle for the departed. It's a site dedicated to the noteworthy. Not the obscure. Alwaysquestioneverything (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)alsaysquestioneverything Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310[reply]

I feel it is odd that you would use the word "intellectually" having missed the statement, "I was uninvolved in this matter", my emphasis added. The very first part of my statement is me clearly saying that I am involved in this matter and the rest is bringing to light that everyone else voting here is involved as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment to REVIEWING Admin"- I have never heard of either of these parties. I was actually looking through the articles for deletion of other non-notable actors, and I am confused. Having looked at both bios (Ward and Moore), i dong understand the debate. Outside of personal issues, neither one of these "actors" have even come close to achieving a "noteworthy" career; in fact, almost every one of the articles up for deletion contain more substantial film and/or television credits. This whole issue seems pretty frivolous to an outside observer. It seems almost irrelevant if the single "source" in debate is "credible", I think the bigger question is, who are these people and why is wikipedia allowing itself to be a sandbox? Furthering my confusion is the fact that "actor" Ward had a few parts in films nobody has ever heard of from over 15 years ago. Why isn't his page up for deletion? This is pretty funny reading for the holidays. Cheers everyone!Filmfanboi (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)user filmfanboi Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310[reply]

Actually you are "uninvolved" in everything. Your account was created today and this is the first edit that you've made. You do know that your IP address is traceable, right? So if someone is using a second account to influence a formal process like this, its not difficult to determine. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Support deletion"- the only expansion or editing of this article in its history as been done by people citing one unreliable and inaccurate story, written by John Horn, a friend of the deceased. This story was the subject of a libel lawsuit, for its many harmful inaccuracies. The friends of the deceased,( a very Much unknown and insignificant "actor" from a few small independent films in the 90s,) have taken the opportunity to hijack wikipedia and wage a personal campaign to attack a living person, violating many wikipedia policies. See Wp:avoid victim,WP:COI, wp:notpublicfigure, wp:blpname, and wp:blpcrime. The supporters of keeping this article have a history of editing the Nate Moore page with language that no objective third party Wiki admin would allow. Besides quoting a single Ill informed source, (the guardian) the information included in some of these edits is irrelevant and of no interest to the general public. Things such as an opinion of what Moore wore to court are ridiculous. These "editors" should cease their nonsense and move on. This has no place in wikipedia. David ward wasn't significant enough to have an article either, for that matter. If so, every single extra or one or two line actor who ever lived would require an "article." The fact that ward and his two friends began a fight one night that ended poorly for ward also does not necessitate a "wiki" article. Wikipedia has many provisions against allowing persons to hijack the forum and does not allow persons to use articles as a way to continue an ongoing personal attack. Please refer to the many "edits" made in the past 24 hours.Hemi.pwr (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)hemi:pwr Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310[reply]

Wow, do you have evidence of what you are asserting about the article and the lawsuit? This changes things completely. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 12:27 pm, Today (UTC−8)

"delete" Neither of these "actors" have achieved anything close to "signifigance". There has only been a handful of wiki activity on either page, from the handful of same users. The "crime" mentioned isn't worthy of any significant attention. Wikipedia isn't a history of crime blotters, rather, according to Wikipedia standard, the subject must be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention. Neither of the two subjects have achieved notability as actors, and the "event" was not at all noteworthy. One article was written years ago in a now defunct newspaper. This appears to be a personal matter, best left out of Wikipedia. Inclusion only seems to invite the use of Wikipedia as a forum for personal use. One need only glance at the traffic and edit patterns of either "article" to see that they are mostly edited by the same person, "neptunes trident", making note that this use was also the creator of Both pages. I'd say delete and move on. 😃Shark310 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my question? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted: Sets bad precedent; Among other issues

I've reviewed the "sources of information" that have been cited to by the proponents of this page. I am a Deputy District Attorney and have been so for many years. I have extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system as well as the way a case proceeds through the system. From what I see, one of the creator's of this page has cited to a magazine article which was written during the pendency of the case. As such, it cannot be considered a reliable source of information. None of the facts stated in the article had to be proven at any point. In other words, think of the following analogy: a tabloid may say that Celebrity X is currently pregnant. Months later it is determined that said celebrity is not pregnant. Yet, the tabloid would at no time print a retraction because at the time of the original article it sold copies. As such, this has no business in a webpage that is dedicated to providing true and accurate information. Furthermore, and what should be given most weight is the fact that, if you look up the court documents, which, based on the information it does not appear any of these contributors have, Mr. Moore entered a plea of "Nolo Contendere." For those of you who don't feel like googling that and who didn't suffer through law school, that is a plea of "No Contest." This means that a plea agreement was reached where the Defendant did not actually admit to guilt. It is NOT a guilty plea as many people confuse. I've also taken some time to look online and it appears neither of these persons, Nathaniel Moore and David Ward are of noteworthy significance in their so called "fields" of acting, or in anything else for that matter. In fact, I doubt anyone, besides maybe their close friends or family have even heard of them. To allow this sort of what appears to be a "feud" between interested parties opens a door to many more articles where a "Victim" and "Defendant" wage war on a website designed to provide the public with scholarly and noteworthy information. This site is called "Wikipedia - The free Encyclopedia." It is not a place for two groups of people to feud over what may have been a significant event in their own personal lives. If every Victim of a crime and every Defendant decided to start Wikipedia pages to slander each other in a public forum, it would only desecrate this site, whose purpose is to provide accumulated knowledge on important topics or people. Nathaniel Moore and David Ward do not fall into either of these categories. I'm sure both parties have strong feelings about this situation, however, Wikipedia is not a place for a feud between two interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CA Prosecutor DDA (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this issue is clearly the result of an ongoing personal feud. Wikipedia should immediately delete both pages and maintain its integrity, dignity, and credibility. Neither one of these two parties is even remotely close to "noteworthy." The author of both articles, "Neptunes trident", is clearly involved on a personal level, violating the NPOV policy, and as such, it would appear that the sole and primary purpose of this article is to violate rule 3 and 9 of the reasons for deletion clearly stated in the Wikipedia reasons for deletion. In other words this is an attempt to disparage one private party by another private party. This is exactly the kind of thing that ruins Wikipedia credibility.00:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Factchecker0818 (talk) Blocked as a confirmed sock of Shark310

Comment - My suspicion is that the following editors Hemi.pwr, Shark310, Factchecker0818, are maybe all the sockpuppet accounts of actor Nate Moore? And he's trying to get this information offline? Just a guess. And for the record, The Guardian is a VERY reliable source and a major newspaper. The story was also written about in Premiere magazine as well. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Subject is a not notable actor with a not notable, failed acting career. Worlds Famous Cypress Hill (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the article for Dave Oren Ward survives AfD then a merge and redirect would not be unreasonable, but as far as Moore goes, he's solidly non-notable. The only thing he's known for is the manslaughter case and even if he pled no contest, this is still ultimately what he is known for. None of his roles gained him any recognition, so other than the manslaughter case there's just nothing out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued for deletion for Ward since his roles didn't really gain coverage in reliable sources and the films themselves could probably redirect to the director's page. I do note that there is a new article titled Killing of Dave Owen Ward and barring that page getting deleted, this could redirect there. I am a little leery about the new page since there really isn't a lot of coverage about the manslaughter itself and I'm also slightly concerned that this could be a little bit of a WP:POINTed response to various edits made by sockpuppets intent on removing the whole thing from Wikipedia as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo, there is already a merged article in progress, Killing of Dave Owen Ward. As soon as this AfD is closed, it can be converted to a redirect for both Moore and Ward. As for the Scoks, its a clear case of WP:CENSOR to me. What their connection is to the Moore incident, I have no idea, but no one has the right to delete information that they don't like. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears that, small acting credits notwithstanding, Moore is only potentially notable for the crime he was involved in. That puts us in a situation somewhere between WP:BLP1E and WP:WELLKNOWN; an actor is not necessarily someone who is likely to remain low-profile, but neither is Moore notable for anything but this (single-sourced) event. Luckily, BLP1E and WELLKNOWN both give similar advice regarding BLP content: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out" (WELLKNOWN) and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" (BLP1E). Currently, the article's crime content is supported by a single, rather tabloid-y news article. I can find no further coverage of the event in a google search, and certainly nothing high-quality enough, or focused on Moore enough, to support a negative BLP. The article's non-crime content is supported even more weakly, with only an IMDB link and a passing mention of Moore's name in a movie review.
Though it's not being proposed right now, since the alternative article has been brought up above, I'll add that I would also support the deletion of Killing of Dave Owen Ward on a similar basis; its sourcing is essentially the same, providing little reliable support for an article on a sensitive BLP-related topic. If more sources covering the actual crime are available, it might possibly be saved if it can be fleshed out in a direction other than "tabloidy", but in its current state, it has no business on Wikipedia given our commitment to BLP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fluff, that's a fair observation. If you don't mind, maybe give the Editors that are working on the article a reasonable amount of time to research and expand the article. At least a month would be nice, we're all volunteers after all... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable - no one is waiting a month to allow this rubbish to continue exist - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your urgency does not help your case, but thank you for your comment. Like I said on the merged article Talk page, things like this cast doubt on actions and intentions. You're just helping to make my case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: In a typical article about, say, a company whose notability is iffy, a month wouldn't be a big issue. But in a almost-wholly-negative BLP, policy compels us to remove such negative content unless and until it can be supported with a reliable, published source ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"). The only source available right now doesn't meet those specifications, and your requesting a month makes me think no better sources are readily available, so I continue to feel that the material cannot be allowed in an article - which means the article has no notability at all. If you want to keep working on the article to get it to a more acceptable point, I would suggest working on it as an offline document until such time as you feel you have provided fully-adequate sourcing for the negative claims. I know that's an awkward workaround, but the fact is that a negative BLP is a particularly special case of "err on the side of Wikipedia not hosting it until its sourcing is unquestionable." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter: Just so were clear, we talking about Killing of Dave Owen Ward and not this article and you're referring to the Guardian article as a source? We should move the conversation there if that's the case. As for this (Nate Moore) article, I'm perfectly fine with having it deleted and turned into a redirect. I even asked an Admin, but this AfD has not run 7 days yet. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles share the same gossipy single source supporting the account of Ward's death, so I'm talking about both: if there's no more adequate sourcing available for the quite opinionated claims made in the Guardian column (especially subjective, storytelling stuff like who said what in which dramatic manner, what intent Ward and/or Moore had, whether either man was talented or likeable, etc), we cannot rest an article, about the person or the event, on them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I understand your assertion, you're saying that because The Guardian article has subjective elements, that the factual information can't be used? And for the record, I agree with your reduction of the "crime novel" aspect of the incident description. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More that given the POV and embellishments in that article, its reliability as far as basic facts (especially considering there appears to have been no trial, and thus no conviction/testimony/witness statements backing up the article's assertions) is pretty iffy. In conjunction with some other reliable sources covering the topic, it could be fine as a "and here is what some coverage of the time looked like"-type source - it doesn't need to be written off entirely, necessarily. As a lone support for the event, however, it's really not something I find to be high-quality enough to hang a negative BLP (or an article based on negative content about a BLP) on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the "no contest" plea and there being no trial is well taken, but not so fast on the testimony and witness statements. The death of anyone means that A LOT of "paper" (law enforcement speak for reports) is generated. Police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are all public record and available for review. In my opinion, the level of detail given in The Guardian article (and I am assuming if for nothing other than liability reasons) had to come from credible sources like these for their fact checkers or editorial reviewers to have passed the article for publication --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: I can't tell if you're serious or joking? All of the things you listed: Police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are NOT public record. I don't know where you got that idea. All of those things are located in 2 places... the DA file and (I'm assuming) the defense attorney's file. Forgot.... the Defendant would also get a copy of reports. I guess you could always attempt to ask him for a copy. It appears that in some of the other comments I was reading, @Neptune's Trident: accused him of being on here a couple times. Not sure if that's allowed. Seems like that shouldn't be allowed. But I'm new. Anyways, point is you cannot just go to the law enforcement agency and ask for copies of reports re: people. Hence the reason, in my prior posts, I was kind enough to inform you that the facts as they are listed are inaccurate. However, let me comment on something you said in one of your earlier posts; and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you were not accusing me of any sort of misconduct or saying I have violated any of my ethical obligations as an officer of the court or even as an attorney. Since those are very serious allegations which I would take very seriously. It is because the information is not public record that I did not correct the misinformation. I have simply let you know it is inaccurate. As stated by another user, @Fluffernutter: there was no trial and thus no trial testimony, which WOULD be public record. It seems as though you are misinformed. Also, I do not understand why you appear to have such a vested interest in this. It appears EVERY time someone disagrees with your strong opinion to keep this, you start with attacks and accusations. I just had an opinion. I did not want to wage some sort of war with you. I simply feel this is not noteworthy, the persons involved are not noteworthy, and most importantly, the information is inaccurate. No need to tarnish the integrity of this site.

Your opinion is fine, and you can continue to have it, but if there are verifiable sources available and someone wishes to spend time creating an article to document an event within Wikipedia guidelines, the integrity of the site allows for this. Like I said in my reply to you at the Talk page for Talk:Killing_of_Dave_Owen_Ward, your opinion is not going to change policy via this one article or this single discussion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:03, 1 January 2015 (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. Can be userfied on request if somebody really wants to salvage this to do the cleanup. Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of education in Japan[edit]

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

Rambling essay in not-quite-English; not encyclopedic title or content Imaginatorium (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather similar to the recently deleted The reformation of entrance exams for universities. There has been a lot in the news recently... Imaginatorium (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT unless someone feels like doing a complete rewrite. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the WP:TNT view above. This is just a rambling essay filled with original research, and the same characteristic style used for citations suggests this part of the ongoing Kyoto University student assignment. --DAJF (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename or merge with Higher education in Japan. Needs clean up and proper citations, but I don't see any reason to call this original research and it isn't bad enough to warrant WP:TNT. It's an overview of the history of the Japanese university entrance examination system, which is clearly a notable topic. --Cckerberos (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botella (measurement)[edit]

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

The source (Cardarelli) is an unreliable "kitchen sink" collection: it includes vast numbers of units which are not scientific units at all. (E.g. 'dash', 'coffee spoon'). In particular botella is neo-Latin for bottle (see Wiktionary [7] ) and obviously has been used in history to mean "a bottleful"; no evidence of more. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: The source is a proper reliable source, go through the all references in the bibliography list. The book does not intend to include only the scientific units as it title suggests it include scientific units, weights and measures. Origin of the word of the unit may have different aspects, but here the recent usage is provided.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: Your attempts at an argument are not persuasive. Please describe this "recent usage" which is provided. Why are you so obsessed with this book? From a money mill (Springer, last changed hands for $4000000000) it costs 153 pounds at Amazon. Why did you buy a copy? Do you have a financial interest in more copies being sold? Could you also supply me with a copy of the entire entry for the unit UKline, preferably in facsimile; is it printed exactly like that? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: Botella was used as Guatemalan units of capacity. This article is needed to be enriched later with additional information. UKline is mentioned in page 30. Please provide me your email. I can email you.Shevonsilva (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. And even if it WERE notable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PianoDan (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Here, in addition to the meaning of the unit, definition and conversions are provided for the additional usage. This is not a dictionary entry as it provides references and additional information. In future, this article can be further improved by other authors. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Botella was used as Guatemalan units of capacity. This article is needed to be enriched later with additional information.Shevonsilva (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider AfD-ing the related articles as well. This looks to be a permastub/dicdef and per arguments above, wikipedia is not a dictionary. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Botella was used as Guatemalan units of capacity. This article is needed to be enriched later with additional information.Shevonsilva (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The botella seems to have been used throughout the Spanish-speaking world and still seems to be in everyday use in places such as Guatemalan. It is thus comparable with the pint used in the English-speaking world and so we should build on this in accordance with our editing policy and global perspective. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course botella is used throughout the Spanish-speaking world. You know why? It's the Spanish for "bottle", and in wine circles it is standard that a "bottle" is 75 cl. So yes, in Spanish wine terms una botella es un unidade di capaci... sorry, I can't speak Spanish, but you can read about it here: es:Botella#Capacidades. If a person is reading in Spanish, and doesn't know what botella means, Wiktionary will tell them it means "bottle", no more no less, as of course "bottle" is also used in English to mean a standard bottle of 75 cl. (Even so, it is quite marginal whether this is really use as a *unit*.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standardisation of the wine bottle as 75 cl seems to be recent. The sources all seem quite definite that there were 5 botelas to the Spanish gallon and as 5 x .75 = 3.75, this seems to be an earlier unit than the litre (which was itself based on the older French unit of litron). As an encyclopedia, it is our business to cover the complex history and details of such weights and measures. Simply leaving this to a dictionary to say that this means bottle would be quite inadequate and contrary to our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to "our editing policies" as though they said "Keep anything". Have you read the es:WP article? Do you not find it curious that despite the obvious care spent in describing the standard bottle, and the list of bottle sizes, there is no mention of this supposed distinct "unit" usage? Can you find a reference in Spanish? I don't really speak Spanish, but I do speak Japanese and I have watched some ludicrous discussions on WP about well-known facts, ludicrous because the participants were trying to rely on references in English. And we know that Cardarelli is happy to chuck in just any English word for a container if he can find someone mentioning that a particular bag held so much, so it's unlikely he would stop at Spanish. BTW, Spanish_customary_units does not have a plausible volume unit of 3-4 litres, nor any unit including 'gal', so there is no source for the purported "Spanish gallon". And where on earth would the description of "between a pint and a litre" come from? Except that, well, wine bottles at least, which many might regard as the most important bottles, are generally in that size range. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep referring to our policies because policy-based argument is preferred here. WP:IMPERFECT states
"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing."

So, we should be tolerant of weak, fragmentary starts to a topic because this is our fundamental way of working. A more perfectionist approach was tried in Wikipedia's predecessor, Nupedia, but that was so unproductive that it was abandoned.

As for the Spanish gallon, there are multiple sources attesting to this in places such as Costa Rica and Nicaragua. They have 5 botellas = 1 Spanish gallon = 120 fluid ounces. The latter equivalence indicates that this gallon is what we cover at wine gallon. I find some interesting history of that at the North American Review but it seems quite complicated. Working on topics of this complexity is not simple and straightforward and so time is required to gather and digest all the elements. Deletion would disrupt this process and so is only mandated in special cases such as BLP. This isn't such a special case and so our policy is not to delete.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have great trouble understanding the article. Its wording suggests that this unit is now used in Cuba and Guatemala. But two of the sources are from the 1920. Is it used now, was it used then, or was it used in the past? It is, or was, one fifth of a "Spanish gallon", a term that's not explained: according to the article Gallon, Guatemala uses the US gallon; according to the article es:Galón, central America uses the US gallon (when it uses the gallon at all). I don't know what the little quotation from the Guatemala guide means: out of context, it seems open to the interpretation of "sold by the bottle". (And if so, well, yes: no surprise here.) ¶ Incidentally, in the generally good Tan'i no jiten (ie "dictionary of units"), 4th ed, there's an entry for botella (pp.276-277). For what this is worth, it doesn't mention time (the entry is worded in such a way that unit could be used at the time of publication or just at some unspecified period in the past), variability, Cuba, Guatemala, or any kind of gallon. Instead, Koizumi states (with whatever degree of authority/credibility) that it's an El Salvadorean unit of liquid capacity, equivalent to 0.73 litre. I'd expect Koizumi (the editor) to say something like "Although the term normally just means 'bottle', in El Salvador it is additionally used as a unit, equivalent to a particular kind of bottle." But he doesn't, making me wonder if he knows what he's talking about here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the Spanish gallon is the same as the wine gallon but I'm still digging to find out more, as time permits. Andrew D. (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As explained above, naturally the Spanish word for "bottle" has been used to measure quantities such as "a bottle of milk", but no encyclopedic information about a notable unit is available. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article milk bottle. That's still quite poor but shows the potential of such a topic. Andrew D. (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if Bottle said "A bottle is a liquid measure used in English-speaking countries such as England and Canada...six bottles make an English gallon", with a reference that includes "Many products, including liquor, are sold by the bottle". The current article is about a unit for which there is no demonstrated notability, and it should be deleted. Later, if someone finds encyclopedic information about botellas (information that does not belong in bottle), a new article can be created. Sticking up for stub creators is fine, but please also think of other editors who are concerned about the proliferation of perma-stubs with dubious content. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sizes.com [8] actually has a useful list of the standardised bottle sizes throughout the Spanish-speaking world, with one glaring defect: it fails to mention that "botella" is Spanish for bottle. Imagine you are a Spanish speaker with no knowledge of English, and you read of various English units, the ounce, gill, bottle, pound, bag, sack, tun, ton, quart, room, load, standard, etc etc. You have no way of knowing which of these are genuinely names of units, and which are simply words for containers. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a helpful source which shows that botella was more than just an arbitrary container. It was a unit of commerce and recorded as such by local ministries and even the United Nations. As the UN took the trouble to record it, this demonstrates notability. Imagine you're an English speaker with no good knowledge of the Spanish language and customs. You come to Wikipedia to find out about this only to find that the information has been deleted! Andrew D. (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the information you are saying this person would be complaining as missing is not in the article we are talking about. The sizes.com page (almost, cuz it doesn't say 'bottle') shows precisely that bottles were used to sell liquids, and every town had its own idea of how big a bottle was. You cite the milk bottle article, which is -- surprise, surprise -- about milk bottles, as though this meant that the "milk bottle" was a unit, which it isn't. The (useful/interesting) factoid that at least sometimes somewhere a Spanish bottle for wine and the like held 1/5 of a (more research needed) "Spanish gallon" belongs at "Spanish gallon", or "Wine bottle", or "Bottle", or "Wine bottle sizes" or more or less anywhere except at an article whose title is the Spanish for 'bottle'. Why does WP have article titles which are not in English? There are sometimes genuine reasons, but I keep running across things like wasei-eigo, eikaiwa, shukko, kyoyasai, and so on, which are presumably incomprehensible to almost all readers, are not genuinely "untranslatable", and in many cases are actually inaccurate as well.Imaginatorium (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information is missing because all the effort seems to be going into attacking this editor and the topic, rather than building upon it in a collaborative way. The page in question was nominated for deletion less than one hour after its creation. The reason given is that the page was vandalism. This was an outrageous attack contrary to our behavioural guidelines but the editor who did this has not been reprimanded. I was training a new editor recently and was surprised at the level of hostility which was immediately shown to her. Without my assistance, her first experience of Wikipedia would have been very negative and we would have lost yet another editor. We have multiple policies and guidelines which emphasise the need for tolerance and forbearance because the process of editing is not easy and we rely upon volunteer goodwill. Wikipedia's volunteer base is clearly in decline and some attitude adjustment is required to turn this around. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which new editor you, Andrew D., are talking about, but anyway regret that this person faced hostility. As for the editor who created this page and many others like it, her experience of en:WP started slowly but as far back as 2005; she has been very active recently and can hardly be considered a new editor. Yes, this article was marked "{{speedy deletion-vandalism}}" and no its creation/existence didn't constitute vandalism. However, consider what it was: "An obsolete unit of capacity." That was it, the article in toto: the most charitable description I can come up with is the possibility of a promise of an encyclopedic article some time in the future (but in the meantime merely the bleakest kind of dicdef, whereas Wikipedia is not a dictionary). No, not vandalism, but seemingly a waste of time. Anyway, you were and are free to reprimand the user who called it vandalism. ¶ We do indeed depend on volunteer goodwill. This article was created on 28 December. Here is its creator's talk page one day earlier. Read it, and you will see that the creation of this article flies in the face of repeated, polite, reasoned requests. Toward the end of the talk page, we do see volunteers losing their cool; but for the great majority of it we see volunteers being extraordinarily patient (probably far more patient than I would have been). I would imagine that these volunteers would have preferred to be doing something else. (As for me, I'd rather be improving articles on the history of photography.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing more pitchforks than patience here. Anyway, that other editor was User:Mauladad and it remains to be seen whether she will stick with it or is now quite intimidated. To demonstrate how that works, there's another dispute over at ANI. One of the editors has been editing for 4 years and has made about 25000 edits but explains that "I've never created an article because I'd feel disheartened if it were nominated". The effect is quite the opposite of our policy WP:BOLD which is endorsed in the five pillars, "Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected." Deletion is problematic in this area because it is not so reversible and so does systemic as well as psychological damage. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see more patience than pitchforks. (The secret is not to start reading near the end.) ¶ Here's my most recent creation (I mean, before anyone else touched it): it's pretty rough, but it does say something. I've created some pretty crappy articles in my time (I like to think that these days I know better), but I don't remember ever fearing that any would be deleted. ¶ "Trent from Punchy" (which has almost nothing to do with me) was deleted (twice), and there it is, alive and well. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could imagine some articles on weights and measures organized by time and place. This editor has created a few of these, it seems. I doubt if there will be enough information about an individual measure to warrant an article, even though the measure itself can be found in the related reference books. Therefore, my advice would be to drop the individual articles for lack of anything to say about them other than "a unit of measure...", since a one or two-line article isn't likely to be helpful. Another option is to gather the measures by type - liquid measurements, weight measurements, packaging measurements (OK, I'm making that up but I think you get what I mean). References can be made from the names of the individual measurements to the pages. It's not that the content of these articles isn't of interest, it's that alone the individual measures are too brief and lack context. Perhaps, since some work has been done, the articles could be userfyd so that like measures could then be put together in a rational and helpful way. LaMona (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that the editor creating all these articles has also started on much more reasonable titles (which no-one has tried to delete), "Units of measurement in..." Abbyssinia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, and well, you get the idea. But these are still just copied wholesale from various number-collectors' books, so for example the Argentina one has one set of units with Spanish names from one book, and an apparently unrelated set with German names from another book. So lots wants investigation, but not the article titles themselves. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Sphinx In China[edit]

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

Don't believe that this is encyclopedic. Sounds like a case of WP:NOTNEWS Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improved or cleaned up. Wikipedia is not a news source, though this event may be notable. Yet another case of WP:TNT (this seems to be my favorite argument in AfD as of late...) Also open to userfy if creator requests it. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 10:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete; a temporary movie set prop is not notable; otherwise it's a case of Not News.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article isn't particularly well-written, no argument for deletion has been made here. Everyking (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have linked it but didn't as it was already mentioned. The policy is WP:NOTNEWS.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know. How does this article run afoul of NOTNEWS? Everyking (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling essay attempting to be a news piece. Judging by the characteristic citation style, this is part of the ongoing Kyoto University student assignment in which students upload poorly written articles and never come back. --DAJF (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulted to keep. Things went too complicated in the discussion, let us just fix the fact that there is no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hollingsworth[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a television journalist. Neither of the substantive claims of notability here, news anchor for a local television station and regional reporter for TSN, gets a person over WP:JOURNALIST in the absence of reliable sourcing — and for added bonus, the region he covers for TSN has no major league franchises in any sport to cover, thus leaving him mostly covering him things like QMJHL or practice squad hockey and opening up a very real question about how often his reportage actually gets onto SportsCentre. So this needs to be deleted if the referencing can't be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If having bestselling books is enough for WP:AUTHOR. The bio reports that two of his books have been national bestsellers in Canada, one of them a #1 bestseller for 3 months. As WP:JOURNALIST ~~he fails~~ per Tchaliburton, he passes for winning a Gemini award. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown and not on any of the national book sales charts that it takes to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, a "hit single" that got played twice on one radio station in the band's own hometown and never appeared on any of the IFPI-certified national pop charts that it takes to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, etc.) — so it's a reliable source which explicitly shows his book appearing on a national book sales chart that would get him over WP:AUTHOR for that claim, not a self-penned marketing bio on the website of his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Bio claimed national, so what we need is someone with an account at the Globe and Mail who can check the bestseller list for November 2010. If the archives go back that far. – Margin1522 (talk)
Keep. His bio states that he is a Gemini award winner. That should confer notability per WP:JOURNALIST #4, "has won significant critical attention". It also qualifies him per WP:ANYBIO #1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he won a Gemini Award has to actually be cited to a reliable source, not to his own marketing bio on the website of his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a cite for the 2003 Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event, 2003 World Junior Hockey Championship, as stated in the Bio. This page cites the names of the producers, but TSN apparently regards it as having been awarded to the entire team. I'm not familiar enough with the broadcasting industry to say whether this is a common practice, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. You often see the entire crew getting up on stage to accept these awards. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that a reliable news network like CTV is going to lie about its employees. In any case, according to Metro News he won a Gemini in 2003. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter a whit whether CTV would or wouldn't lie about it — as his own employer, they're a primary source for information about him, and nobody but nobody ever but ever qualifies for a Wikipedia article on the basis of self-published or employer-published sources alone. As Margin1522 points out, there's a potential dichotomy between who the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television considers to be the winner of the award and who TSN wants to credit for it — but it's the ACCT's determination, not TSN's, that decides whether he's a winner of the award or just a hanger-on. Bearcat (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting primary sources and independent sources mixed up. A primary source would be a court transcript, public document or diary. The CTV site is actually a secondary source. But it's not independent, which is a whole other issue. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting anything confused. A court transcript, public document or diary is a kind of primary source, absolutely — but anything at all written by the topic of the article, or by other people with a direct affiliation (e.g. his own employer, his wife, etc.), is still a primary source no matter what format it's in. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that non-independent sources are always primary. That's incorrect. See Wikipedia:Party and person for some clarification. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television does not list him as a Gemini award winner. The fact that he worked on a sports program that won a Gemini award for two other people does not make him a Gemini award winner, nor does the fact that his employer claims he won -- the ACCT is the awards-giving body, and they should be the ones to say who the winners of their own awards are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the search feature working? I'm not getting any results for anything I try. I wanted to check who won for best sportscast in 2003. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Metropolitan90: @Tchaliburton: We have no record from the ACCT of who won any of the Gemini awards. Those awards have been discontinued and replaced by the Canadian Screen Awards. Their page on past winners of that is here. As you can see, it's very sketchy. This is typical – awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners. What we do have is this list from a 3rd party site, awardsandwinners.com. By checking other years, we can see that the "Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event" was always given to producers. However, producers may have accepted it on behalf of the team. And it's entirely possible that this is an accepted practice within the industry, so that it's legitimate for Hollingsworth to claim to have won it. To check that, all we would have to do is find non-producers from other years who claim to have won the Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event. I haven't done it, but nobody has shown the opposite either, so as of now I am going with Tchaliburton's theory that Hollingsworth has a legitimate claim to have won this award. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is how to find the awards database: Go to http://www.academy.ca/Home and under "About the Academy", select "Awards Database". You will then be at http://www.academy.ca/About-the-Academy/Awards-Database and can select "Person", then click "Continue". (You may need a couple of attempts to get the radio button for "Person" to activate, but it can be done.) On the next screen you can run a search for "Hollingsworth" as the name to find, then click "Continue". You will find no results for him. (Also, I disagree with the idea that "awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners"; the better-established and better-organized ones do.) I have found the database to be working on and off today, so if it doesn't work now, try again a little later. I don't know why we would want to search for other non-winners who claim to have won the same award; I realize that Margin referred to "non-producers", but the inclusion criteria for the award could have varied from year to year and non-producers could have received the award in other years. But the question is whether Hollingsworth won the award, not whether any other non-producers did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone checked the bestseller lists for his books? Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried, but the only site I found was a database for publishers that requires a paid account. In principle it should be verifiable. @Metropolitan90: About the Academy database, thanks, I missed that. But what that establishes is that the award went to the producers, which we knew already. The question is, is Hollingsworth's employer justified in saying that he won the award? I've proposed a test to check whether such claims are common. But even if they are common, that might not be good enough if we are going insist that his name has to be on the award. Anyway I haven't got time to do it today. Maybe later. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It just occurred to me that if we're looking up information in primary source databases we may be getting into a case of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But in any case, this reliable secondary source says "Hollingsworth, a Dartmouth resident, won a Gemini Award in 2003". Tchaliburton (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't help but think that we may be going about this all wrong if we're treating the official database of the awards-giving body as a primary source which we're not supposed to use as it would be considered original research, while relying on newspaper articles that contradict that database but in a vague way (i.e. [9] doesn't say what category Hollingsworth won in, for what program, or who shared the award with him). But I can't find a policy that clearly indicates that we should rely on the ACCT database, even though personally I believe we should. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the awarding organization's database of who it gave its awards to, in a case where we need verification of whether the subject is actually a winner of the award, is not original research — it's just verification. Original research is the extraction of interpretations not explicitly supported by the source — but checking the ACCT database for verification of a disputed fact is not "interpreting" anything. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is an 80-page children's book [10]. There are now two editions out, the second presumably having been revised by the co-author [11]. Hollingsworth's earlier book (also 80 pages, for the same publisher) "Brad Richards, a hockey story" has ISBN 1551096331. Neither of these books is available via Amazon, and I tried to find Canadian best-seller lists but came up zero. It could be that they aren't archived online. However, the publisher doesn't include any "best seller" talk around the book, and the 2nd edition is selling for CA3.99. Unless this Gemini award (which we cannot confirm) turns out to be something really big, I'm not seeing notability here. LaMona (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Canada bestseller data is available at Booknet Canada, a for-pay database service, here. This page says "There is no public access to SalesData but we do have public resources and handle media requests." I will trying sending them a media request -- We are Wikipedia and need to know if this book was a bestseller. Since this discussion seems to have come down to two questions: 1) Did he write a bestseller? and 2) Did he get the Gemini award? I'm interested in this as a test case for verifying sources, as much for Hollingsworth himself. Anyway, in the meantime, I found this, which is a 50-minute video of Hollingsworth talking about his TV career and reading from Sidney Crosby. I would add it to the article, but unfortunately the article is currently under attack by an SPA and an IP who keep blanking the content. I don't have rollback rights. Could someone fix that? – Margin1522 (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you can go ahead and add whatever you need to add to the article. Several users have been reverting the blanking attacks on the page, and the article has been semi-protected as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: LaMona, his books are available on Amazon. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So they are available on CA Amazon, but US Amazon lists them as "out of stock." (And, BTW, US Amazon will list any book that is offered to it, regardless of availability. Many titles are "not currently available", both from Amazon and third-party sellers.) So I guess we now need to specify which Amazon we are referring to. I'll try to remember that. In the end, it shouldn't be a surprise that a book about a CA hockey player sells in CA but not the US. Unfortunately, it isn't easy from one country to see what another country sees on Amazon - same with Google. It changes radically from place to place. That makes our task here more difficult. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this relates to notability anyway. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please note the notability guidelines make no provision for best seller status. It has been discussed but there is no consensus for it (many good reasons). However, WP:AUTHOR does say an author is notable if their works have been reviewed. And there are reviews. See Canadian Review of Materials;2/25/2011, Vol. 17 Issue 24, p15 and Quill & Quire;Jul2010, Vol. 76 Issue 6, p27 and Resource Links;Feb2007, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p49. There are probably more if anyone has access to Canadian research databases (newspapers, magazines etc). -- GreenC 15:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reviews need to be substantial, and in neutral (e.g. non sales) publications. WP:AUTHOR specifies: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The Canadian Review of Materials lists itself as an "all-volunteer online publication." I would mark that as non-RS. "Quill & Quire"'s about says: "Quill & Quire is the magazine of the Canadian book trade." So it is a trade publication. Not "independent." Plus, not knowing how extensive the review is, it could amount to no more than a notice of publication. (Note, a one-paragraph review, like those in Publisher's Weekly, to me is more of a description than a review. A literary review is much more than that. I know that others feel differently.) "Resource links" is a journal for Canadian literature for young people. That's all I can glean from that because it doesn't allow a search and gives virtually no free information on its web site. A substantial review in that journal might satisfy WP:AUTHOR, but it does say "multiple". LaMona (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quill & Quire is independent and widely recognized as the leading authority on Canadian books. I'm not sure why you think it isn't independent. As for the Canadian Review of Materials, it's also a highly respected publication. It's written by volunteers but they are volunteers who are teachers, professors and librarians with expertise in children's books. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it has an editorial board. It's not self published. -- GreenC 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, these sources are commonly used on Wikipedia and are considered reliable. They are independently published reviews with no connection to the author. They are not 'sales publications' (unless you believe every review is marketing unless it's in the New York Times). "Substantial review" is incorrect, that's an arbitrary value judgement. The word "substantial" does not appear in AUTHOR. We regularly accept Publisher's Weekly and those types of reviews as evidence of notability. -- GreenC 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between independent and not has to do with the industry and audience that is served. A publishing trade journal exists to promote sales. That's its role. It serves the companies and people who are publishing and selling. The New York Times has a different audience and different role - it not only does not exist to promote sales, it has been known to give bad reviews to books, to theater, to art shows, thus possibly harming sales. Publisher's Weekly never says: "don't bother to buy this book." I may not have fully understood the role of some of those journals because they didn't give a lot of information about themselves, but I do think I understand the nature of "trade publication." LaMona (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the definition of book review is "A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit." It is the "critical analysis" part that is key here. If the review is a mere recounting of the story, then it's a synopsis, not a review. There has to be some judgment in a review, something analytic. Just because a journal or magazine or web site calls their writings "book reviews" doesn't mean that they are. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have long accepted trade reviews in AfD. Trade reviews do two things: they describe and evaluate the book. This is the definition of a book review.[12] I have seen poor reviews in trade reviews, I have seen them say in effect don't bother with the book. Trades are used for all sorts of purpose such as libraries choosing collections who rely on them for guidance. The point is for AfD most books never get reviewed at all ("many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed"[13]), that is why we have the guideline for reviews and there is nothing in the guideline about trade reviews nor has there ever been any consensus to not use trade reviews, there has been discussion about it in the past (so I've been told). Generally if all a book has is trade reviews then it's a weaker case then a mix of trade and other types. This has more than trade reviews. -- GreenC 19:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, are you familiar with Quill & Quire? If it's not an authoritative source of Canadian book reviews then there is no such source. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given this ongoing chat is designed to provide "fact checking aspects", this is sloppy on many accounts. Earlier comment by Bearcat suggests his "reportage" barely appears on TV. He's on all of the time. Almost daily. SC Story of a Champion is NOT a children's book as stated by LaMona. It's 30,000+ words and sells at Chapters Canada for $17 not $3.(it took 30 seconds to research this and realize Lamona was wrong. But some Wikipedia user who does not put his/her name on this page calls it a "children's book"??? To my eye it appears to be 80 pages simply because it's in Coffee Table size/format, making it thinner. By the looks of it, had it been traditional format it would have been roughly 150 pages. Shoddy work by some on this page. I'm finding more errors on this on-going feedback section than on the actual Wikipedia page which appears to be accurate. I don't think making up facts helps in this case. Please be truthful and please be better with your research. I know nothing about the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.115 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Where does it list this book as a best seller? It's not mentioned on the wiki article. Nor do any of the references list it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the publisher's page at the second edition for $3.99CA [14]. And see here where the grade level is listed [15]. You might disagree with this assessment, but that's what I saw, and both are reliable sources. I do not think that "shoddy work" is an appropriate way to approach the discussion. And I truly resent anyone saying that I am not being truthful. Please act in good faith. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a children's book is something that was fabricated. It's simply not true -- it was made up and clearly you don't enjoy being called out for it. But beyond that, there is no mention of any "best seller" status on this page. Nor does it appear in the references. $17.95 and it's still on sale here in Pittsburgh even four years after it was published. Just stick to the facts and you'll be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the actual links so you could look at them. The Worldcat record lists the elementary school grades the book is appropriate for, and, in my experience (and I have much experience with library data), grades are only listed for children's books. Plus anything appropriate for grades 3-6 cannot be assumed to be a book for adults, although (and this is the case with the Harry Potter books) adults may read and enjoy them. The price for the second edition is right there on the publisher's page that I linked. I agree that there is no mention of any bestseller status on the publisher's page. I pointed that out before. But maybe this publisher doesn't put those on its page -- I'm not trying to prove a negative, just passing alone what I actually see. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point is there is no mention of "best seller" on his Wikipedia page. Why is best seller topic being discussed if it's not mentioned. From what I can tell, the book sold quite well and likely is on a top list somewhere. But on the Wikipedia page it's not an issue. There is no "best seller" line to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the price or reading level have to do with notability? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat wrote: "PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown". Please verify. Where did Bearcat get this information about the bookstore. Let's be transparent. Please post on this page or retract comment. We've already established he was wrong about "reportage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that he authored any 'bestselling' books, then it is incumbent on you to provide verification. It doesn't matter what Bearcat said. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:AUTHOR doesn't say an author is notable just because their book has been reviewed. It says that a person is likely to be notable if the person "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Emphasis added.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a general example of the kinds of things that BLPs about all kinds of people regularly claim in order to beef up the appearance of being more notable than they really are, not an allegation against Hollingsworth. So there's nothing to retract, because my statement as written was entirely true — people really do that. And anyway, our rule on Wikipedia is that it's not the claim of getting over a notability rule that gets the person over the notability rule, but the quality of the reliable sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be willing to withdraw my "delete" recommendation if the claim that Hollingsworth won a Gemini award were removed from the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, article content does not determine notability. If you think he's notable then the article should be kept regardless of the current state of the article. If you don't agree with the content then that can be discussed, but you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced information should be removed. In contrast with Metropolitan90, I do not see how removing that sentence makes the subject any more notable. So I agree with your statement about the !vote, but we still have very little here that is verifiable and that would support notability. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I shouldn't have made that offer. But I don't see how we can justify having an article that is five sentences long where one of the five sentences is known to be false. That seems like a very high inaccuracy rate. (The inaccurate sentence is sourced -- the problem is, a much more reliable source on the same subject contradicts the statement.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short articles are acceptable. As for the "false" statement, not everyone agrees with you that it's false. But if the consensus develops that it is false, it will be removed. However he meets other notability criteria which people have explained. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inaccuracy rate on this discussion is higher than any proven inaccuracy on the article. There was suggestion his reportage rarely appears on TV. That was a sloppy guess and wrong. He wrote a book on one of the most famous athletes in North America, and someone (above) suggested it was on a Canadian athlete and likely didn't sell in USA. Wrong. It's on shelves in Pitt at Barnes and Noble and sold for a while at NHL rink. Someone called it a children's book. Wrong. And I don't care what some web site categorized it. I went the store and checked myself. I have little confidence that the one sentence is actually wrong based on "some" of the feedback on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.127.189 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that you think he really did win a Gemini Award, and the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television somehow forgot to list him as one of the winners? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that a reliable secondary source says he won a Gemini. Previously the database didn't even work, so maybe there's a problem with it. I don't know. But in any case, the database is a primary source and we shouldn't be doing original research. We should be looking for a secondary source that confirms or refutes that he won the award. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 07:05, 1 January 2015 (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Peters (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. The one fact (well maybe two facts) that matter for this biography have no source other than this website which hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. It should be noted that his age is no longer accepted by the GRG. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that this should not be a separate article. Not so clear consensus about whether a redirect to "yard" would be appropriate. The creation of a redirect is therefore left as a possible editorial action by anyone interested. Sandstein 10:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter yard[edit]

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

This "unit" consists of two words used in their natural sense: "Quarter yard" is no more and no less than one quarter of one yard. Yes, it has been used as a measure for purchasing cloth (not clothes), indeed I have probably bought "a quarter of a yard" of fabric or haberdashery myself, but that does not make it a unit worthy of a Wikipedia article. DePRODded without comment by original author. Sourced to one book which has sourced several articles of concern to other editors. PamD 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this is not a meaningful subject. The fascinating factoid that (when I was a kid, even) cloth was sold in units of quarter yards is already mentioned on the yard page. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yard, which, as Imaginatorium pointed out, mentions the "quarter" unit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quarter yard still seems to be a significant unit for fabrics as it appears in lots of books about quilting and the like. See The Quarter Yard Principle for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well in America perhaps, at least. But this is mentioned on the page on the unit, the yard. Do you think that if paint is sold in 3 litre tins there should be a page "3 litres (unit)"? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your paint example seems quite fictitious and so makes a poor straw man. For some daft weights and measures pages which I tried to delete myself, see WP:Articles for deletion/1 metre. The quarter yard seems better than that and it would be sensible to merge the content into yard as suggested by Mr. Granger. That name in this context reminds me of Are You Being Served?. It's a shame that Jeremy Lloyd has passed on... Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the three litre analogy makes sense. I can probably still buy a quarter yard of fabric, or "One and five eighths yards" or whatever, from an old-fashioned shop in the UK although most now deal in metres; although I might buy a half pint of beer, or use a quarter of a pint of milk in a recipe, I don't expect to see Wikipedia articles about those measures any more than I'd expect to see "Three litres" or "Quarter yard". PamD 20:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quarter-yard is not an arbitrary fraction. It was used as a unit in cloth measure as shown in this source, The Ship-Master's Assistant. This tells us that four nails make a quarter yard when measuring cloth and we have a good article about that smaller measure - see nail (unit). The topics should might be taken together or assembled into some larger piece about cloth measure but, per our editing policy, that's not done by deletion. And notice that we also have a blue link for the common variant - the fat quarter. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yard per User:Mr. Granger - why is quarter yard different from yard? — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What about half yard and three-quarters yard and quarter foot or the enduring quarter inch? These are not encyclopedic topics, and creating redirects for every conceivable measurement (one and five-eights yards not to mention six feet) should not be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fractions of a unit of measurement, no matter how notable that unit may be, are not worthy of mention in separate articles. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous articles and bluelinks for fractions and multiples of some basic unit. Examples include:

The issue is obviously whether the usage is common enough to be a reasonable search term or title. In the case in question, it is too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Don't permit me to annotate this list, but here's a copy (thank you for making it) with some annotations. I thought, incidentally, that the purpose here was cooperation, not squabbling.

SI prefixes are somewhat different, and 'decade' is about the only one which is genuinely a multiple. You forgot century.

decade
halfpenny A coin, not a unit
hundredweight Not a multiple
kilogram SI prefix, but the base unit in SI
kilometre SI prefix
kilowatt hour SI prefix, but standard unit (watt hour redirects to kWh
millimetre SI prefix
millisecond SI prefix
quarter-hour Redirect to hour
quarter mile Redirect to dragstrip, slang expression
quarter section DAB, but it's true, almost an article about 1/4 of something.
quarter (time) Redirect to Calendar year including mention of quarters
quarter (United States coin) A coin, not a unit

Imaginatorium (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sake! The argument is not whether there might one day be a fascinating article about the "quarter yard", with pictures of Victorian (?Elizabethan? my history not strong) ladies, quotes from Marlowe and whatnot, the discussion is an Afd for the current article which says (I reproduce the actual information content in its entirety) "A quarter-yard is 1/4 of a yard". An encyclopaedia strives to have coherent articles, which show not merely the referents of individual words, but the relations holding them together. Not one iota of the information content of this current article should or could be deleted, because it is already in yard. You mentioned the nice little article on nail (unit); I think this would be better incorporated into an article on measurement for dressmaking, because then the reader would naturally get the whole picture, instead of having to hop from bit to bit. ("bit" a unit used in on-line encyclopaediae to refer to page units; off you go). Of course it is often hard to decide exactly how to partition knowledge, but in the case of units the relation between the units in any scale is very important, so as far as possible it is desirable to keep them together. I'm not sure quite how we're supposed to vote on this, but if it keeps the world spinning, and would save vast amounts of time, let's just redirect to yard. (OT: but it would be nice to have an article on non-normalized units, like 1/4 yd in place of 3/4 ft or 9 in, and the Americans using megafeet or something equally fatuous to crash on Mars with. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is the kilogram(me) no longer the basic unit? (It was back when I was a schoolboy; or is my memory going?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The system has evolved in stages from the original definition of the gram as the weight of a cc of water. My basic physics education was in CGS units and so I still think of the gram as the more basic unit. The process of evolution still hasn't finished as the metrologists aren't happy that the standard kilogram is evaporating. See the proposed redefinition of SI base units. Andrew D. (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in one (sometimes rather shaky) reference book about units. However, it's not in Kesakatsu Koizumi, Tan'i no jiten (i.e. "A dictionary of units"), 4th ed, Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981 = 小泉袈裟勝、『単位の辞典』第4版、東京：ラテイス、1981年 (no ISBN), even though this does find space for quartaut, quarte, quarter, quartera, quartern, etc. So it doesn't seem to be a priority in metrological lexicography. As for its other significance, the article doesn't hint at this, and none of the attempts above is convincing. Therefore delete. -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fractional unit that isn't even much used. Redirects are cheap, yes, but where does this particular sequence end, how long is a piece of string? Please note that there has been some not particularly subtle canvassing at WT:GGTF about this and some related articles today. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too subtle for me to make sense of Sitush's complaint. I mentioned three AFDs over there. In the first case, I !voted to delete. In the second case, I have no definite opinion and so haven't !voted. In the third case (this one), I've !voted to keep. The only result so far seems to be that Sitush has rushed over here to jump to conclusions, right? Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Yard Andrew D., I didn't try them all, but clicking on some of your listed examples above re-directed me to articles on larger units (e.g. quarter-hour redirects to hour, and isn't even mentioned in that article, which looks to me like a punt). The problem with quarter yard is that there is nothing to say about it, other than the measure. And if there is nothing to say, then it isn't encyclopedic. A number of individual articles have been created, all with the same reference to Cardarelli, and I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a way to create a link mass to that book. In any case, unless some individual weight or measure has a fascinating history or significant content, I don't think that the individual units of measure themselves are encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clicked on the examples too, and tried to annotate the list, being as careful as I could to use a distinctive colour (green) to add comments, but Andrew D, champion of cooperation, being gentle to other editors, and our editing policy didn't want "carping" on his list, so I made the copy below in purple. Incidentally, it is not true that there is nothing to be said other than 1/4=1/4, but it is already mentioned on the yard page that cloth was sold in yards, down to quarters, rather than feet or inches. And I am working on a critique of Cardarelli, contributions welcomed. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrew D. says: "The issue is obviously whether the usage is common enough to be a reasonable search term or title." That sounds to me more like a dictionary function than an encyclopedia. We look up "terms" in a dictionary to get a definition, and perhaps a short example of usage. An encyclopedia is about topics, generally broader than a term, and with more to say than a definition of what it means. What I see in these (many) recently added terms for measures looks better suited to Wiktionary, since they consist only of the name and a definition. This one is definitely a case of that. Even if we add in the use of quarter yard for fabric, it still is no more than a definition. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to yard. Lightbreather (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why a redirect would be appropriate; no article links to Quarter yard. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a unit of measure one encounters in works about sewing, and for someone who hasn't been instructed in sewing, but wants to know if it has any special meaning when it comes to sewing (and it has, which the "yard" article touches upon), a redirect is appropriate. Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who sews (in the US), I can say that quarter yard is not a "thing" any more than half a yard or yard. It's simply the amount that you wish to purchase. In quilting circles in the US there is a measure called a "fat quarter" - which is a quarter yard square piece of fabric, pre-cut, used for quilts that will use only small amounts of each fabric. They are sold at speciality stores and quilting fairs. (Yes, just a bit of trivia, but thought someone might like to know.) LaMona (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about the "fat quarter." I added it to the "yard" article yesterday.[16] I disagree about a quarter yard having no special meaning related to sewing, but I won't argue about it. Nor will I change my vote. I think a redirect is completely appropriate in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources have been provided to verify content in the article, nor have any been forthcoming to qualify topic notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted and The Treble Tones[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and no YouTube videos of this band's songs exist. Searching "Trouble Trio" only had no link to the band whatsoever. Also, looking at the band's page on Google Play will only give results for songs by "El Bret Treble" with the album "Controlled" which was from 2011 and has no relation to the article. Even though there's a YouTube user with the same name of the "band", using Google to search any of the band members gave me no references to the article. Therefore, this article has to be a hoax and needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Snowager (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 06:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 06:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck the first half of the article as a copyvio of [17]. Those wondering where the context went can check the article history. Deadbeef 06:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that there is one source, but I'm uncertain if it is either a reliable source or if someone who's a user of the site just read the article, grabbed information about this article and uploaded the supposedly false info to that source, or if some articles of that source are reliant on Wikipedia information. Like I said on my concern for the article for deletion, YouTube doesn't have any videos of that band and on Google Play and Itunes, who has no mention to the band whatsoever, it shows up El Bret Treble's songs instead, having songs such as "Monkeys In The Mist" and "Fire to the Drapes", but no mention to "Trouble Trio". Besides, El Bret Treble's album in the name of "Controlled" is from 2011, not 1959, so I infer that the article is a hoax to make people, including internet surfers to believe in such band. Snowager (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Trouble Trio," or anything else from this supposed band, doesn't show up anywhere within the Billboard charts for 1959. Plus, several names listed for band members aren't found anywhere on Google other than in this article and mirrors - there should at least be some other references if these individuals are real. This article has been around since 2006, which is likely older than [18]. My guess is that Wikipedia served as the source for that page, rather than vice versa. Consequently, this article likely isn't a copyvio - "only" a hoax. 66.177.64.39 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or not, the article completely fails to assert notability. In fact, it comes awfully close to admitting there is none by implying the band is obscure. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although (apart from the nom) there are only keep !votes here (and 1 merge to a non-existent target), not a single one of those !votes is based in policy. Therefore I am closing this as "no consensus" with no prejudice against taking this to AfD again after a suitable waiting period. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Wide Awake[edit]

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

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happen all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a stub and should be given time to develop. It is premature at this point to run an AfD. One source is given in the article, whereas further mentions can be found here. The exercise also has a mention in The Story of the Pakistan Air Force, 1988-1998: A Battle Against Odds (2000) by A. Rashid Shaikh, p. 106. Mar4d (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more work on the article will not make it notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (via del/sort WP:PAK) under the blanket title Pakistani military exercises with all other such articles (with others in summary if their own articles are kept); keep if the article is reasonably expanded above stub and atleast asserts in-depth notability and coverage during the time of this AFD. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve - We have hundreds of articles on exercises, Won't hurt to have another - Also IMHO the article needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am pretty sure we dont have hundreds of articles on training excercises because of the nature of such regular features of military behaviour they are hardly notable, it doesnt even appear to be listed in a rambling section on excercises at Pakistan Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelexis Davenport[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a performer, short on biographical detail and long on unencyclopedic statements of his personal opinion — and relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources (blogs, podcasts) with not even one citation to a properly reliable media source. He might possibly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced Wikipedia article, but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Early Life/Career Beginnings" section is a close paraphrasing copyvio from the cited source. The creator has also created Sulka (pornographic actress), which started out much the same way, with cites to blog posts. But now it is a well-sourced article. That could happen with this article as well. But all I could find was one source in Google Books. It doesn't look like enough. I would accept #2C and #3C in WP:NACTOR, but at this time it looks like reliable sources may not exist. Perhaps later. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mask and identity[edit]

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

This is a fascinating essay, but it WP:ISNOT an encyclopedia article. Seems a bit WP:SYNTHy as well. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was written as a part of this course. ansh666 07:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay synthesizing a variety of articles that don't themselves touch on the topic of "mask and identity". Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy before deleting. Good piece of work, would be pity to let it go like this. kashmiri ^TALK 00:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ram's Horn (animated short film)[edit]

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

I came across this as an WP:A1 speedy deletion candidate, but enough was added to where it has context. The issue is that this film still fails notability guidelines for films overall, as I can't see where it has gained any sort of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS). For what it's worth, this looks like it's going to be pretty good and I think that all people involved have a bright future ahead of them, but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NFF and TOO SOON. This in-process 2015 senior project from filmmakers at BYU is not yet complete, and has not received coverage enough to merit an article. Let it be undeleted or recreated if or when standards are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Schmidt, too soon. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Treaty of 1818. There seems to be a consensus not to have an article, going with a redirect because they're cheap and it is a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pembina Territory[edit]

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

9-year old unreferenced article, tagged as unreferenced since 2006; no such territory was ever created. Kablammo (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the 1870s there was a short-lived attempt in the US Congress to create a territory by this name, but it went nowhere. There is no evidence for the assertion that a Pembina Territory was ever created, much less before 1830, as the article asserts. Kablammo (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Pembina County of Minnesota Territory, which appears to be the same area mentioned in the article. That was not a formal territory, but a subdivision of Minnesota Territory, which was organized in 1849. In 1858 Minnesota became a state, but without former territorial lands west of the Red River, and therefore without the western half of Pembina County. But in any case, the article is wrong, as no Pembina Territory existed. Kablammo (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Compendium of History and Biography of Central and Northern Minnesota and The province and the states. It was a placeholder name used within a US Senate Committee. It was never an official placename. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Troutman's comment above. Treaty of 1818 delineates this land, but doesn't say anything about it being called Pembina Territory. There was a Pembina County in Minnesota Territory and later in the state of Minnesota, but the county boundaries don't match anyway. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fact that two editors can say something about the basis of the article from a name used by a denate committee suggests to me that this ought to be in WP somwhere, but I do noit think it deserves an article. How about redirecting to Treaty of 1818 and adding to that something about the senate committee. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that sounds like it would work. A redirect to Treaty of 1818 would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal to create a separate territory for this region was in 1872, I believe. So I don't think a redirect would work. The elusive Pembina Territory never existed. An article on Pembina County (Minnesota Territory) may be appropriate, but it does not yet exist. Kablammo (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Links to maps showing Pembina County in Minnesota Territory: Colton Map of Minnesota Territory (1855), Wikipedia Territorial Map (Pembina County is unlabled county in upper left).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow time for the adequate redirect venue to be discussed. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Treaty of 1818. It's seems that the formal proposal came later but that can be made clear in the article. In the end, we're talking about a line or two and a reasonably unlikely search term. But I agree we should have something and unless someone can suggest a better redirect target, it should do the job for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Treaty of 1818. I agree with Peterkingiron, Elkman and Stalwart111 that a redirect is appropriate. I also agree that the fact that the particular name was not used until after the treaty is not a problem, and can be dealt with in that article's text. Pembina County (Minnesota Territory) is not really appropriate as a target article because of the huge disparity in territory, and relatively loose connection, especially as compared to the Treaty of 1818. --Bejnar (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am having a hard time imagining that anyone looking for the elusive Pembina Territory could find anything useful in the Treaty article, or that a discussion of Pembina x would be germane to the article on the treaty. Kablammo (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Hello all, I just found this and I would appreciate it if it was not deleted. I agree career stubs might be better merged if not expanded but sometimes it just escapes attention. The name was around for years. Because it was not officially (as referenced above) referred to by the name used does not mean it was not called that. I expanded the article with references that I hope will reflect significance.

Comments: The area that is being referred to as Pembina Territory did exist but not "officially". The American Revolution or the American Civil War were considered rebellions so I guess it is a matter of which perspective is observed. I think the region is historically significant and much of the area specific history is more narrowly defined. If my contributions are deemed sufficient then I suggest the Afd be withdrawn or concluded as keep. After this we can determine if a RM is needed for a name change. I think Pembina Region, like West River (South Dakota) and East River (South Dakota) would probably be more appropriate. Per my edits those two "regions" were the subject of territorial consideration. Otr500 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otr, I think that is a good solution. I question whether we should use the upper case for the geographic entity; i.e., it should be "Pembina region", not "Pembina Region", etc. I doubt that "Pembina Department" of "Pembina District ever existed outside of mention in one letter, which uses the lower case for "department" and "district": the district or department called Pembina.[19] "Pembina Territory" is arguable as there was a proposal for such an entity so named, but personally I still would not captitalize "territory" as that proposal never was adopted. 17:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello 17:11, I think "region" would be fine. It wouldn't be capitalized unless part of a proper name anyway. I kept running across names, Pembina Valley Region, that makes up a part of the Pembina region, Black Dirt Region, Calumet Region, and other namings like Columbia Basin, as opposed to Amazon basin. I saw it here and forgot it was a title. Duh! In the "Territory of Pembina" section I stated "the region of Pembina". Otr500 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 12:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ren[edit]

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

Alleged to be a CSD A7 eligible article, but the editor disagrees. I'm listing here for community input on whether the article should be deleted or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm not seeing a lot of definitely-usable sites when searching, but there does seem to be a fair amount of coverage. Needs a huge rewrite if kept.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will clean all unsourced information since a girl which know her good add a lot information about her, but there is no reliable source. Will try to find more information to cover it. Still, i think its fair to keep the article. Its have all the needed sources and watching to add new information every time i got sourced information. I do believe its not fair to delete it, since there is a lot more unreliable articles which have no reason to be here, but they are. Worked on this article, Ren is happy that she got wiki page, so lets keep it - K.belev (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly tell "Ren" to wait until she is notable and someone with no COI will write about her here. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:CSD#A7. She could have that biography published elsewhere but certainly not here. Wikicology (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she fails on WP:CSD#A7. She is a model with manager, having a half milions followers/fans. Already worked for big names like Calvin Klein. How is she not important. - K.belev (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the fact that every model are often managed by a manager, and that does not have any effect on notability. Let me continue with the fact that Having half a million followers on facebook/twitter does not make her an encyclopedic subject. Wikipedia is not facebook or social network of any form, it is an encyclopedia. Let me conclude with the fact that Notability is not Inherited. Having worked with Calvin Klein does not make her notable.. Wikicology (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article have enouth references, its about real person and will be fair to be kept here. I fell that she has done a lot which making her a notable. If the article is deleted, sooner or later will be made new for her. - K.belev (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read WP:RS. Wikicology (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google indicates she's been a cover girl for Brejk. Is that not the sort of thing that counts towards "notability" in this field? English coverage seems to be limited to "JoBlo.com" and "TheImproper.com" – not even sure what those are. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly intended to promote this person's career, rather than to document a person whose career is noteworthy. If one's job is modeling, then having evidence that you have modeled is merely evidence that you have done your job. It will take much more to achieve notability at a WP level. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it would further her career. Do people come to Wikipedia to book models? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Μυρτώ Τζώρτζου (2014-09-20). "Alexis Ren: Συγκρατήστε το... όνομά της". Proto Thema (in Greek). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
2. Μυρτώ Τζώρτζου (2014-05-28). "Alexis Ren: Συγκρατήστε το... όνομά της". Proto Thema (in Greek). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
3. Šimák, Milan (2014). "Zmyselná baletka Alexis Ren vás odzbrojí nielen anjelskym úsmevom". Pluska.sk (in Slovak). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
4. 胡芸芳 (2014-12-17). "美国96年女星拍性感写真 "真空"抢镜(图)" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Ren to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran all of these through translate, and they all have the same 3 sentences about her, and nothing else. "The Ren was born on November 23, 1996 in Los Angeles, California to parents originally from Russia and Germany and upcoming model. From small and for 10 years worked with ballet but what he wanted to do was photographed as a model something turns. The Ren loves gymnastics and visits daily the gym for yoga, pilates, aerobics and weights. During the summer months, as a true child of California and Los Angeles, indulging in various water sports." I wouldn't say that this is "sufficient" in terms of content. Especially since they seem to copy the same text. LaMona (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The different language sources (Greek, Slovakian, and Chinese) might be reporting the same basic facts about her, but I think there is just enough (though barely) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletearticle lacks the type of sources to establish the subject is a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: soft-core porn sources don't get her past the reliable sources criteria of GNG. Vrac (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only trivial and routine coverage, nothing that would make me feel this person meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I still find it fair to keep it, until more reliable sources come. Is it possible to redirect the article to Nous Model Management until that time? See no point to delete it and after some months to create it again. K.belev (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to Nous Model Management (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
Cunard (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR in multiple countries is still just PR. I would very strongly oppose redirecting borderline notable models to their management--that amounts to WP directory. If future sources show notability, an article can be written based on them. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects says:
Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)
Alexis Ren is a subtopic of Nous Model Management, and she is listed in that article. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep but erase sources like tumblr and promotion (not relevant and neutral at all). It might be rewrite to be more accurate. Torukmato (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with unreliable sources removed, should have been A7. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Any "repurposing" of the article can be discussed on its talk page and effectuated by a simple move. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Ferries[edit]

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

Strikes me as the exact kind of article Wikipedia should not feature. I would argue the website/company is not notable and does not pass WP:N.

Article is also a strange mix. It's mainly about the website but talks a lot about the company. But neither passes WP:ORG or WP:WEBSITE. Current references are poor and mentions on the web don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH and also have other deficiencies. I see lots of PR puff pieces about the founders of the company etc. But Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages: WP:NOTYELLOW. A good PR company does not mean a company should feature. Perhaps another Wiki like WikiBusiness would be more suitable for this website/company.

The article's current references:

1st reference: Self published: [20]. 2nd reference: From the BBC [21]. But is a passing mention only and features/is based on quotes from the director as well as many others. And certainly there is little about the website itself. Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. 3rd reference: Not working [22] but it refers to this Fast Track entry [23]. But the figures and facts are self reported here [24] so arguably this entry does not prove notability at all. Also, the figures are for revenue not commission/profits. Their profit could be 2% of this. We just don't know. 4th reference: Not working [25]

Other mentions on the web:

Having looked around the web, I found these: 1: Interview with the director. As such not an independent source. Difficult to argue this passes WP:ORGIND. Seems PR based [26]. 2: A quality source but a small passing mention and again based off quotes from the company directly. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD. Again seems PR based. Nothing about the website [27]. 3: Passing mention in a limited interest industry publication. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. Again seems PR based [28]. 4: Another PR based piece. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. Again a limited interest industry publication [29].

Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided about notability, but if you call the BBC article a "passing mention", who ave a very strange definition of passing mention. I woudl say it is absolutely a valid source to establish notability, so only one more good one is needed... Pinging @Ritchie333: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ritchie333: for input, this time properly. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ThaddeusB: Thank you for the help. :)

To clarify what I mean about the BBC reference: Firstly, the BBC is a huge - there are mentions of all kinds of companies (notable and not) on their website. Looking at the BBC article: Is it about the website in question? No, it's about how not to be left behind by technology. Is it mainly about the website in question? No, there are 8 small paragraphs (6 if not counting direct quotations) in a 34 (approx.) paragraph article. Are other companies/websites listed? Yes, Koozai, Gravytrain, SAP, 192.com and confused.com are all included in the article. Compare this with a genuinely notable website like Booking.com to see the differences [30]. Finally, the article seems to be very much based on quotations. For these reasons I believe it doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. If we included every company that managed to get a few lines or quotes into a BBC article, we would have thousands of websites in Wikipedia. But these websites simply aren't notable.

And when you say "so only one more good one is needed... " - if this is a personal rule of yours, great :) but it's not accepted practice on Wikipedia. If you're referring to this line "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." in WP:CORPDEPTH I think you are using a false dichotomy. If one is not good enough that doesn't mean two necessarily are. Not that, for me, as demonstrated, the BBC reference is a "good one". Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it most certainly is the generally accepted practice on Wikipedia that two good sources are sufficient to establish notability. It used to be explicitly written into the GNG that "multiple" in depth sources constituted notability, and multiple was always interpreted as two in AfD discussion. It was removed because occasionally one really good source is enough and occasionally two borderline sources isn't enough, but in general two good sources is almost always seen as sufficient.

As far as false dichotomy, saying something is not as notable as Booking.com means it is not notable most certainly qualifies. The bar to notability on Wikipedia is very low. Indeed most organization written about by a major publication such as BBC are notable (once mere quotations by company personnel are excluded). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding Booking.com that was just an example. I never said it was a rule that anything less notable shouldn't qualify. Some websites should. Not this if you ask me. You say, "The bar to notability on Wikipedia is very low.". I would argue that isn't true but either way these are all opinions not facts. Also "multiple was always interpreted as two in AfD discussion". If there is something written about consensus being based on two good sources then please provide a reference. I would appreciate that. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the company is notable, albeit barely, based on This Sunday Times interview combined with other interviews from lesser sources [31][32], combined with the ~4 paragraphs (i.e. counting short paragraphs as half paragraphs) written by BBC (which only includes one quote, incidentally). I do not believe directors from a non-notable company would be interviewed in depth on multiple occasions (brief quotes, sure, but not full length interviews). The brief coverage in Financial Times also helps a bit. The profile by the Sunday Times's International 200 Fast Track should push it over the edge by providing sufficient basic facts not taken from an interview to justify an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I really find it hard to believe that we can consider extensive interviews as being independent of the source and the Depth of Coverage notes do say we should not count "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". And there's a clear pattern of coverage based on fluff pieces like this. They have a great PR company for sure! Regarding the Fast Track stuff this is based on self reported facts/figures. You can say what you want. [33] so it's pretty much the same as the interviews if you ask me. And if you look at it, you'll see that they say the figures are for revenue not profit. A small company that sells other people's products on the web can make billions in revenue but very little in profit. I hope you'll consider what I'm saying. Thanks once again. Marksterdam (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fast Track: You can nominate yourself, but Sunday Times picks the winners and almost certainly fact checks the info provided. I find it quite hard to believe they would not do so. From the about us page of FT: "Fast Track has established a reputation... due to: the quality of our research behind the league tables... 20 staff and a network of freelance researchers... interview most companies on the league tables and visit over 300 a year." That sure sounds like fact-checking to me, not merely republishing what companies provide them.

As to the interviews, saying a PR firm generated them is speculation. In my opinion, if a high reputation source like Sunday Times does an interview, it is because they expect reader interest in it, not because a PR firm asked them to do so. While the quotes in the interview are indeed a primary source, the background material can assumed to be fact checked (just like any other article) and count as a valid secondary source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, ranking companies by revenue, as opposed to profit, it the standard way these things are done (in business publications). There are many reasons for this, but chiefly profit figures can be manipulated a lot easier than sales figures. (Neither is relevant to notability, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding profit/sales you say "Neither is relevant to notability" - Do you withdraw what you said previously about the "unbiased" figures helping you on notability then: "The profile by the Sunday Times 's International 200 Fast Track should push it over the edge". The citation from Fast Track is actually for "Private firms with the fastest growing international sales". They wouldn't be there were it not for their apparent sales figures. But now you say that actually revenue or profit don't prove notability at all.

Also regarding "picking winners". This is not the format. To quote: "Participation in our various league table programmes is based strictly on financial performance".[34] It's a league table based on financial performance only - which you can self declare. Marksterdam (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding Fast Track, you seem to think that visiting companies and doing interviews is "fact checking". Let's try and not speculate. Need I repeat, the entry is based on reported sales. Without speculating, nowhere does it say that sales are checked. But either way, you've said already that sales/profits are not the basis of notability. Which I do agree with. Especially where you have an agency business model where the commission could be peanuts and sales figures very high.

You also say "saying a PR firm generated them is speculation" - agreed it is, that's why I say things like "I think" and "it seems" but it's based on logic - when you have many sources that are in the form of quotes/interviews etc (what I call puff pieces) I think it's a fairly logical assumption.

You say "if a high reputation source like Sunday Times does an interview, it is because they expect reader interest in it, not because a PR firm asked them to do so". In the real world, it's often a combination of these things. But the interest is in the subject of the article. Which by the way once again, is not the website which is the topic of the article in Wikipedia, the subject is the director of the company and his life story - so there is an argument that the director should feature in Wikipedia but the website? I think not. And as to background information for these interviews being fact checked. One, what background information are you referring to? Two, this is pure speculation on your part. For puff pieces like this for limited private companies, do you really think that the journalist does a lot of fact checking? I think your estimation of journalists is rather high. Besides, what facts can you really check? They are not a PLC. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Everything about the Sunday Times and their Fast Track index makes we believe they fact check (e.g "the quality of our research behind the league tables" suggests a lot more than blindly repeating self-reported provided), which would make them both reliable sources. And reliable source coverage = notability by Wikipedia definition. Every other criteria is irrelevant. A company with $1 of sales can be notable if the coverage is there.

If you honestly think that anyone can just input whatever financial #s they feel like and FT will put them in the top 200 (calling that "winners" was a poor choice of words on my part) if the number is large enough, then I think you are crazy. However, I can't "prove" that they fact check, while you can't prove Direct Ferries' coverage is the result of a very good PR firm. (I do find it humorous you would chide me for "speculation" when you are engaging in it yourself, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We are just going to have to agree to disagree." Agreed. And yes we've both speculated a lot. :) I agree with that too! I think we've both said or pieces and our arguments (in the debating sense) are there now for others to read and decide for themselves. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazingly, this discussion is already ten times longer than the article in question. Here's my assessment: ref. #1 is from the company's web site - does not count toward notability; ref. #2 has information about the company, but by itself is not enough for WP:CORP; #3 & #4 return 404s. LaMona (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMona:. Can you please comment on the links used to justify notability (see my "keep" comment), as opposed to just those in the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, thanks for asking. The Sunday Times and Financial Times are behind paywalls, so I can only see a bit of the ST one, and I'm not even allowed onto the page of the FT one. The only part of the ST one that I can see is heartwarming stories of boyhood. Then there are two online business mags that I do not consider to be significant sources - these types of sites exist solely to highlight business (kind of like fan zines) and earn advertising revenue. For example, LondonLovesBusiness has an editorial team of exactly four people. Both of those are light-weight "interviews" of Davies, typical business "fluff". In the last one, the company is listed as 177th in a list of 200, and gets one paragraph. Not significant coverage. So, to sum up. Two newspapers, which I cannot verify, have articles on the company. Then the question becomes: what's the content? Whatever it is, it does not appear in the WP article. If the gist of the content is that the company has become a successful company at doing what it does, and this is the story of a company turn-around, a "single event", then I do not find it notable. People take over floundering companies and turn them around without that being worthy of an encyclopedia article. That's doing "normal business." What I want to see is what is truly notable about this company, other than running "business as usual". Did they invent something? A new way to do something? Are others following their lead? The bottom line is that WP is not a business directory, so a business doing business is not encyclopedic. (p.s. This comment is now longer than the article itself.) LaMona (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say you wish to see inventions/innovations to prove notability. That is a valid "real world" definition of notability, but on Wikipedia notability means something very specific - being covered by reliable sources in depth. I believe in depth coverage has occurred here due to reasons I already explained, so won't repeat. As to having an editorial staff of 4, that actually argues the point opposite of the one you wish to make. That is, publications with editorial oversight are presumed to be reliable unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Whether the editorial staff is 1 or 100, usually only 1 person will oversight an article. Regardless of the size of staff, it is the oversight that suggests articles are more than the unchecked opinion of one person. A business publication may exist "to promote business" but that doesn't make it less reliable than say a sports publication that exists "to promote sports". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we have to be careful not to be reductionist. That WP has rules about reliable sources does not mean that every company that has had 2 articles written about it is notable. If it were, bots could create WP by scanning newspaper and magazine indexes. There needs to be some intelligence applied to WP. I know that some people want quantifiable rules, and thus there are some numbers in the policies, but I don't believe that any policies were meant to be applied in place of human judgment. I also am aware that living persons and living companies have an interest in being in WP for SEO reasons, which is why we should scrutinize those categories of articles for true notability. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are right that judgment should be used, of course, but they farther we stray from a hard rule the more random AfD decisions become. It's a fine line... You are wrong about search engine optimization though. Links on Wikipedia have been "no follow" for many years now, which means our articles have no effect on any other webpage's ranking. The only benefit one gains is the wiki page itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        They also get a really big info box in Google searches which helps small companies look big/notable when they often aren't. Don't know if you've seen those. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete trivial accomplishments. LondonLovesBusiness is straight PR. For the two newspaper articles, what is their length? DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)~~ I no longer am sure it should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Shouldn't you have determined the length of coverage before opining, rather than say "delete but please tell be the length of coverage?" ... Looking in a premium database, I see: The BBC article is 8 short paragraphs, or about 4 full length paragraphs. Financial Times is 2 paragraphs. The referenced Sunday Times article is 19 paragraphs, some of them short, so maybe about 15 full length paragraphs. And a couple not available online: An earlier Sunday Times article has one paragraph. An earlier Independent "the business of the week" article has 5 paragraphs, two of the short. I would say that is sufficient newspaper coverage to be (minorly) notable. Add in the Fast Track profile, which is reliable despite bizarre claims that the Sunday Times doesn't fact-check its FT data, and I think the case is clear.

I also see that Direct Ferries is tracked by ICC Financial Analysis Reports. While that probably does not impart any notability, it does give further independent validation of the financial information reported by Fast Track, which supposedly are unverifiable self-reported junk ("because anyone can nominate a company"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: we discussed speculating too much before. And I think we agree it isn't wise. I think we've both been guilty of it. So here are the facts as best I can see about Fast Track:

Can anybody (including the company itself) nominate a company for inclusion? Yes.[35] Do Fast Track say they fact check the financials of the companies they feature? No (but they say they visit over 300 per year and interview most) - so let's say there is no real evidence either way.[36]. Is a Fast Track a reference purely based on financials alone? Yes.[37]. Have you actually said that we shouldn't rely on financials alone for notability? Yes.

Do Fast Track work with ICC Financial Analysis Reports? No evidence. Note however, that it seems ICC Financial Analysis Reports actually collate information on all limited liability companies. To quote from an online database: "the ICC Financial Analysis Reports (ICCLCO) file offers comprehensive analysis on all companies with limited liability in the UK-"large", "medium" and "small", from all sectors of UK industry and commerce."[38]. So they cover everyone, big and small. I really don't see how this supports notability at all.

And finally as others have said it's a one paragraph entry at number 177 in a list of 200 companies. Looking at Fast Track's lists (aka Tracks), every year they will have 750 companies featured. Even if we ignore the fact-checking and self reported aspects (which even surprised me) I still don't see how we can read a one paragraph entry (one of 750 that year alone) as contributing to notability. Thanks for considering this. Marksterdam (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, either you didn't read what I wrote carefully or are purposely misrepresenting me. I said ICC "probably does not impart any notability" so not sure why you'd argue the same thing. I didn't say it had anything to do FT, in fact I said it was "independent", which is quite the opposite of implying the two are related in any way. In other words, the fact the numbers match is evidence that FT is reliable.

As to FT, you continue to cherry pick words on the FT page to make a point that they do not support. If you read the entire "about us" page, it is quite clear that they are claiming to validate the information on their page. Additionally, it is backed by a undeniably reliable source in the Sunday Times. In my opinion, it is quite silly to assume the Sunday Times just blindly reports every number a random person types into their FT website. Just because anyone can nominate anything doesn't mean the info is blindly repeated ("self reported"). It is utter nonsense to equate the two. Finally, and most importantly, you blatantly misrepresent my argument for notability over and over again by claiming it is based solely on the FT page. That is just one small piece in the puzzle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: Please forgive me I don't mean to cherry pick or misrepresent anybody. I would advise anybody to look through this discussion to read both of our points for and against throughout the thread not just what was said recently. Your points and my points do indeed cover a lot more than Fast Track. Also forgive me for being a bit ambiguous before. By saying that we have no evidence Fast Track "work with" ICC Financial Analysis Reports, I meant there is no evidence that they rely on their figures/findings/research. They do indeed seem to be independent of one another.

Going back to the fact-checking issue: I think we'll have to agree to disagree as there is no real evidence either way. However, for me there are still many reasons to not use Fast Track for notability (given above). Regarding figures matching, if this is true (you provide no reference), the figures could be from the Fast Track report itself and also wouldn't invalidate any of the points against Fast Track - one key point actually being one that you made - which is we shouldn't rely on financials to prove notability. Fast Track is only about financials. Personally, I think we are starting to go around in circles a little bit. I think we both have argued very thoroughly for and against and now I'd suggest we both should leave alone and let people give their own verdicts to keep or delete. I believe all arguments surely now must be on the table. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I've added some more news and book sources to the article, and trimmed out some of the chaff. None of the "delete" !voters, aside from the nominator, showed evidence of WP:BEFORE, and a quick news and book search reveals many hits. Most are just mentions of "if you want a ferry here, pop onto directferries.co.uk", granted, but they still count as independent and reliable coverage. I don't believe the writers of Lonely Planet are taking backhanders from the company; rather they, like me, typed "ferries to [insert country here]" into Google and found the site. For me, the Financial Times source that describes them as "the largest ferry ticket aggregator in Europe" cements notability. PS: I didn't get the ping, I just found this on my regular round of looking at AfDs for AfC submissions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm between Keep & Delete on this but the article's been significantly improved since nomination - I'll admit it still needs more improvements but personally I think improving seems a better option here. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ritchie333: Since you accepted the article via Articles for Creation you haven't changed your mind therefore. I think it would have been surprising if you had posted a delete nomination.

When you refer to the FT piece, are you talking about this? Which btw anyone can see if they register for free. As mentioned it's one paragraph in a very long piece and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. As to the claim that the company in in question is the biggest in their field, I think we need to take this with a pinch of salt in articles like these that are based on numerous bitty quotes from business people. I think anyone can see it's very much a throway line within the one paragraph that could have easily been provided by the interviewee. Besides which what does "biggest" really mean? More routes, more customers, more turnover?

Many companies in many fields often claim to be the "biggest", "best" etc. based on many different things. And would any of that actually contribute to notability anyway even if true? Should the "biggest" online camera-shop in Hong Kong feature in Wikipedia? The "biggest" holiday comparison website in New South Wales? You get the point, I think claims to be the biggest in a particular field don't necessarily prove notability and especially if it's one line in an article based on quotes with no evidence of research or even what "biggest" means.

Regarding the other new references you added, the ones which I and others don't talk about above (e.g. the PR type interviews with the directors etc. - my opinion), I agree that these are very much in passing but unlike you, I question whether they really contribute towards notability:

Here we have two sentences, giving Directferries as an example of a type of site and knowing something about SEO and paid links, the way that the key text "car ferries" (autoferrys) acts as the anchor text, and not the company name, would lead me to be very suspicious about this link. See Google's own notes on Link Schemes especially the part about "Links with optimized anchor text in articles".

Another one: One sentence, in an article that mentions 24 websites in total! The Depth of coverage notes are very clear that lists should really not count towards notability. And while this isn't a 'pure' list (E.g. 1,2,3) I think anyone looking at the article can see it really is just a list of travel resource websites.

The Lonely Planet Morocco guide reference you now include which you can see here is again two sentences and as you say is probably the result of the journalist finding a result near the top of Google. Should every company that comes high in Google for particular searches feature in Wikipedia? To me, the answer is no. Furthermore, Lonely Planet does often list many websites in their guides (again, should all of these be included?) just on the page previous page in the Morocco guide I see two other websites mentioned - saharahoverland.wordpress.com (appears down now) and horizonsunlimited.com.

In conclusion, I don't expect I'll change your mind, but what I'm seeing here to me is a non-notable company (they sell ferry tickets online for other companies with presumably a commission model) that yes, does exist, and therefore does get some passing coverage (every company would) and in addition has some pieces that appear to me to be PR led about the company directors lives etc - you could argue the directors should feature in Wikipedia. And of course the fast track list (they list 750 companies each year based on self reported sales (who else could know the company's sales figures) and nothing else). However, what I don't see is any in depth coverage about the website or the company itself from reliable independent sources. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The principal problem is that Direct Ferries is used a lot and known about at an international level by tourists and people on the move, but as a subject it's dull. So reliable sources will cover it, but only the interesting bits, which isn't much. A layman reader doesn't care too much about the directors (hence why I reduced it down to the names of the CEOs and nothing else), they just want to book a ferry and sort the rest of their travel. It is the comparethemarket.com of ferries. I've known about it since about 2010 when it came out in the top Google search for "ferries to Ireland" and still does. If I want to travel there, I don't care which ferry company I use, so I let a broker sift the results so I can balance cost versus timing.

However, the term "Direct Ferries" is a legitimate one to type into the search box, and I don't think you'd dispute that there are sufficient sources to write about the company in another article. I've cobbled together List of crossings of the Irish Sea as one possible redirect target. But if somebody created List of crossings of the English Channel, which could potentially also be a suitable redirect target for "Direct Ferries", you're stuck. There is no really good article to direct to. That means we've got to go with "Keep". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Marie Bridges for a similar AfD.

This is one of the problems where adhering to the specific counting of "x paragraphs in y sources that satisfy z" of WP:GNG doesn't work well, otherwise you could argue the case for deleting lots of small village articles.

PS: I'm not averse to changing my mind and AfDing my own AfC passes from time to time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm glad to see you aren't averse to changing your mind. :)

From your description it sounds like you have known about this website/company for a while and perhaps find it's services useful. Perhaps your familiarity with the company/website, while not a WP:COI, may be clouding your judgement about notability and you are stretching more than you ordinarily would in your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Regarding the fact that you find it top when you search for "Ferries to Ireland": Firstly, we certainly should not consider Google rankings as a genuine indicator of notability. But let's look anyway. When I search, I don't see Direct ferries at the top at all. I would suggest that you are seeing personalised results due to your familiarity with the company. Try hiding personal results in Google by clicking the globe icon at the top right.

When I search, I see Direct ferries at number 5. Positions 1 through 3 are actual ferry companies. Position 4 is another ferry aggregator - which I can't find in Wikipedia - and then you have the company in question at no. 5. For many other searches like you suggest - e.g. "ferries to x" - I also see many other ferry aggregators.

About your thought that the company is dull to the layman and therefore finding in depth coverage will be difficult: Firstly, in depth coverage is part of WP:CORP so if we follow Wikipedia guidelines, then I would say we should also follow this. Secondly, I disagree, because you could say that companies like Hotels.com, Booking.com, Kayak.com, Comparethemarket etc. are dull too -after all the consumer just wants a flight or hotel so doesn't care about the company. But, in reality, you do find significant in-depth coverage - because these companies/websites are genuinely notable. They are big enough and popular enough to actually gain a lot of in depth press coverage. Not just what looks like PR or passing mentions.

Regarding redirects/mergers. Don't forget this is a company/website. Not a ferry route, so I certainly agree that those mergers are not right. This may be a better idea if we add a list of example companies perhaps. However, I see nothing wrong with deletion. Redirect or keep are not the only options. This isn't a business wiki or Yellow Pages.

Finally, regarding your idea that there are problems with using WP:GNG because "you could argue the case for deleting lots of small village articles". Remember that there are specific guidelines for many types of content not just WP:GNG. For geographic regions, areas and places, the notability guidelines are less stringent already, see WP:GEOLAND where it says "Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low".

So we can see that there are specific guidelines for companies and different ones for places. The guidelines for companies are tougher. And rightly so. Not all companies have to feature in Wikipedia. It isn't a business Wiki or Yellow Pages but a general encyclopedia. Companies have to be genuinely notable - in other words to have encylopedic value. Although not a rule - as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTLAW - we generally follow the guidelines from WP:CORP. I can see no reasons why we should make an exception in this particular case.

Thanks. I hope you consider my points/arguments as I have yours. Happy New Year. I may not reply for a while :) Marksterdam (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The BBC article is not substantial coverage--just mentions it as an example, but I think the Sunday Times article is substantial. The mechanical use of the GNG is not the way to use it--one has to actually look at the content to see if it indicates editorial judgment--whether it offers some analysis besides repeating what the company representative said. The problems with using the GNG as a guide is that everything that isn't obvious one way or another relies upon interpreting the key qualifications of significant and independent, and that is very often a matter of person ~~judgment~~--rather, personal guesswork. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I agree very much that we have to look at the material in question not just say 1*BBC, 1*FT - many times it's clear that the pieces are PR or lists or passing mentions. Regarding the Sunday Times interview, I think we should also question this.

I don't know if you've read all of it as it's behind a paywall. I paid the £1 to look at it!

It's an extensive interview with the company founder but the topic of the article is really not the company. I would be suprised if there was any editorial input (e.g. research etc.) apart from putting what the interviewee said on paper. From 19 paragraphs about his life, where he grew up, his new house in Switzerland, etc. there are about 4 paragraphs about the company in question (and then in a very round-about way). It also talks about his other businesses, HD Transport and Direct Freight in quite some length. He also has another ferry brand not in the article: Ferries.co.uk see the bottom: "Ferries.co.uk is a brand of Direct Ferries Ltd.". So to me the article is about his life, his various companies etc. (of which there are many) but not about the company in question. WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly" - I think this article definitely does not do that. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are you suggesting we repurpose the article into one on the individual? That might be sensible. DGG ( talk ) 22

44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: It's an option I am not averse to at all. I agree it could be sensible due to the nature of the coverage. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of unique U.S. county names[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. this information is trivia, as there is no particular interest in whether a county name is unique. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's cool that my county is on the list, but really this falls into the category of WP:Original Research as a manipulation of data, in this case county names, not an encyclopedia article or list about the real world itself. Borock (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A clue is that I've lived in a uniquely named county all my life and never was aware of it. :-) Borock (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:OR. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lists for List of the most common U.S. county names and List of less common U.S. county names (together include all counties which exist in two states or more). This list is meant to compliment the two others to give a full listing. Those two lists (most common and least common) created by other users are both derived from the Index of U.S. counties (as is this one). The information in the list of unique county names comes from the Index of U.S. counties with all the counties in more than one state removed (a list with some entries omitted). There are many lists on the topic which have been done in the same way some of which include true original research (a list of counties named after animals, plants, rivers and that share names with U.S. states. There is the list named after U.S. Presidents and women. There are also lists with the the most populous and and least populous which are also derrived from lists with information omitted. If we delete this list then I recommend we delete all of those lists as well and merge all this information into the index of counties and use extensive footnotes at the end of each county name. Or alternatively we could merge the information in this list into the list of least common county names under a separate subsection. I don't see the big deal in having this list. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But still all of these articles are about the NAMES of the counties, not about the counties themselves. Have secondary sources talked about the names of counties as a notable topic, not just many sources each talking about the name of one county?Borock (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List_of_U.S._counties_named_after_plants has no references at all (much like most of these lists). So I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. There is no meaningful difference between listing counties that someone proposes is named after flowers and counties which exist in only one state (and more than one state or a lot of states)...they are both...according to what all of you say, trivial information. At least the latter is accurate and a source can be given. Based on the criteria you've all given the far majority of these articles should go. That's fine if you all agree. However this should be a request for deletion of multiple articles and we should decide which of all of these should go and how to merge all of this information into one or several articles. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lists are cool and fun (to quote Ken from Toy Story 3) but don't belong in an encyclopedia. What happens (and don't take this personally) when someone nominates several comparable articles for deletion is that someone says: "He is starting a mass deletion campaign and trying to change WP policy." When just one is nominated it's: "Why nominate just one when there are others just the same?" :-) -Borock (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't personally care if people complain that there is a mass-deletion campaign or not...if all these articles go against policy then they should all be deleted. Who cares if someone claims there is a mass-deletion campaign if deleting them adhere to policy and there is consensus on the question. If the arguments for deleting this particular article are sound and the apply to closely related (or even inter-related) articles in the same category on the same topic then we should nominate them all and come up with a solution on how to merge all this information. I'm more than happy to go either way depending on consensus on how users here interpret policy. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about if I want to nominate them. As for merging the information, I think each article on a county should give information on its name. I don't favor putting the bits together, in an encyclopedia that is. Borock (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see OR as a concern here, but this is trivial, indiscriminate information. I would delete List of less common U.S. county names for the same reasons. Toohool (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that the data is correct and not made up by the author, but even so something can still be OR if a secondary source has not made the same connections before. Borock (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list is really a sequence of statements of the form "There is exactly one county in the US named X." I think these are permissible routine calculations, but the fact that there are few secondary sources speaks to a lack of notability for the topic as a whole. Toohool (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could this list (and perhaps List of less common U.S. county names as well) find a home somewhere in project or user space, as an aid to the curation and monitoring of county articles by WikiProject United States? --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you propose?--Shabidoo | Talk 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these lists would be helpful to people working on the county articles, but if you think so then do it. Borock (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each article on each county should include the information on the meaning and the origin of that county's name. Borock (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I expected this to be a list of weird county names, which it totally is not! Eagle County, Colorado? Boring! Deaf Smith County, Texas? Yeah! Anyhow, aside from whether it should be renamed List of U.S. county names used only once or something like that (which it should), our inquiry here is really whether the list is worthwhile to have. I can see it being nice to be able to quickly determine whether a county name is used in more than one state. Can we find any secondary source showing others agree it is interesting to know this information?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the most common, less common, and unique name lists could obviously easily be covered in one list-article. It is fine that they are currently split into three; that is a discretionary, editing decision about splitting or merging. It would be fine by me if they were merged into one list-article, perhaps named List of U.S. county names by frequency. A single list-article could still include all the interesting intro discussion about the top 60 that appears in the "most common" one. Note that article/list-size considerations have changed a lot. 100k for an article is fine now; the combo would be less than that. Note the most common county names list was created back in 2004 (in this version by first editor Dralwik).

By the way, the material could be edited to be more encyclopedic, meeting some concern by some commenters above. If they were combined into one list-article, or even if not, it would be nice if there was more historical information given for all or some county names. It is mentioned at the top of the unique names list that some names were previously used in counties that have been merged out of existence or that were renamed. Why not include the specific info in notes in each county name row?

Note I believe this kind of material is encyclopedic, in a great, simple way, very accessible to younger readers and all readers. I like the fun lists of president-named ones, women-named ones, etc. I am surprised that this discussion has not come to SNOWBALL KEEP, like similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by color combination did recently. This is basic good stuff. Sure, editing could improve the separate 3 list-articles or they could be combined into one list-article, but that is for editors to discuss at Talk pages, not for AFD. --do ncr am 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The problem is that we are pushing a different snowball, the snowball of totally esoteric information. How about List of Bugs that are Green but not Red, how about List of U.S. cities without a Newspaper? WP is a great project, but c'mon, consensus is that we're 99% mature at this point.--Augustabreeze -19:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There actually are sources specifically about the topic of U.S. county names. See http://www.naco.org/Counties/learn/Pages/CountyNames.aspx, a National Association of Counties page/essay about names. It cites a bigger study, maybe a book, by William Howard Taft, III: County Names: An Historical Perspective. It mentions the topic of counties named for animals and lists many of them. The page's main table is about the top 20 most frequently used names. I bet there is coverage of the topic within many elementary school geography or U.S. history textbooks. This is a valid topic, albeit simple / low-level, not terribly sophisticated stuff. We commenting at this AFD probably have a lot more skill than average reader, average child, average American for whom English is not their first language, and this article is less to our personal taste, but the wikipedia is for everyone. Also some above claim wp:OR, others (and me) don't see that. It is not technically difficult to sort any list of U.S. counties and count the frequencies. I voted Keep above already. --doncram 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the best solution (for now) is to merge list of most common counties, least common counties and list of unique county names into one article (we can call it list of us state counties by frequency). That way if people search for this information (and it's not so easy to find it online...it takes a bit of searching) the search term will redirect to this page. The article can be broken down into three subsections. I think it's a good compromise considering doncram has found sources and this action would effectively eliminate three (perhaps redundant articles) by merging them into one. If that is the case I will create a new article on counties by frequency and then put a proposal to merge all the articles into that one and leave redirects.
- In addition we might merge the lists on counties named after flowers, rivers, other states into one article but that's a different discussion. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strawman, nobody is arguing that county names or their etymologies are not notable. Nobody has suggested deleting List of the most common U.S. county names or List of U.S. county name etymologies (A–D) and its siblings. The information just doesn't need to be sliced and diced in every possible way for the sake of "completeness". The existence of List of U.S. counties named after animals doesn't imply a need for List of U.S. counties not named after animals, which I think would be an apt analogy for this article. Toohool (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for 7+ counties, a 2-6 article and nothing for 1. Now we have all three and the lists are complete. That is not the same as, for example, taking a list of countries that begin with A and then complimenting it with a list of countries of B-Z. Counties which are unique and don't exist in other states expresses far more information than say, counties that aren't named after flowers (as trivial as it may seem to you). That's not the same at all.

No one has questioned the notability or citations for the article List of U.S. county name etymologies (A–D) (it covers all counties possible). What was questioned was the unreferenced article where the author speculates that the counties are named after flowers (for its notability as a standalone article, lack of references and OR which are the three arguments given for deleting list of unique county names).

If we merge the lists of counties and their frequencies into one article...and then merge the list of counties names which fit under certain categories (flowers, people etc.) into another article...at least then the lists won't seem so arbitrarily divided, trivial as a standalone article and will somewhat approach the quality of List of U.S. county name etymologies (A–D). --Shabidoo | Talk 05:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to fit with the other lists of countys. I see all the lists fitting under WP:CSD #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any reliable sources discussing this unimportant aspect other than passing mentions here and there,[39] nor any actually showing that the existing entries are in fact unique. Utterly trivial. Next up: List of U.S. counties whose names are two words long. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely this list is a waste of our time. It serves no encyclopedic purpose. If you must then make a category, but I really don't see the need. Personally, as a non-American, I'd throw the whole lot in the trash bin. If I went around making a List of least common Australian municipality names, it'd be burnt immediately. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is more or less a navigational device rather than a trivia page. I certainly wouldn't have put time into such a thing, but neither do I see a compelling reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, no source is cited to support the nontrivial assertion that these are in fact unique names. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, as this set of data sorted or selected by a seemingly arbitrary criterium represents. Sandstein 09:45, 1 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Craig[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature. Further, the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources — even the best potential claim of "more notable than your average school board member" notability here, having been singled out by state legislators for "speaking truth" in her opposition to the state governor, is still referenced to Facebook posts and YouTube videos rather than proper reliable sources — so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NPOL, PROF Vrac (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable both as PROF and politician DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalmay Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Spurious claims is it really notable ? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My. Shrikanthv: the article is purely notable. This college is a well known college in India and wikipedia should have information about it. I have gone through your talk page and seems that you only have a habbit of putting pages under deletion.

Can you please justify why this information should not be on wikipedia..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit.tihorxyz (talk • contribs) 09:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing about my habits, note wiki is not your PR site and your article does not meet the WP:GNG criteria, justdial and youtube cannot be used as sources, add some secondary sources i will withdraw nomination. for more info click here secondary sources Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point I do not see any notability documented in the article per WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is somewhat of promotional nature for which references are not provided. May need a major revamp and references added. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (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. Doesn't meet PORNBIO and I agree with The Big Bad One that there is not enough to pass GNG, either. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Nova[edit]

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

Delete: A non-notable pornstar who fails WP:Pornbio. She has no major award wins, made no significant contributions to porn, and is not in any Hall of Fame. She appeared in Howard Stern and appeared in several softcore AVN flicks, but that's not mainstream enough, per WP:Pornbio. Redban (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vote that must have minimal worth in this Afd.Redban (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has done girl-on-boy hardcore which is readily available on the Internet. What makes her notable is the decades she only did girl-on-girl and as a star of Playboy's Night Calls, her girl-on-boy XXX hardcore is worthy to keep article, if it is allowed to be honestly edited and updated. In the past legitimate updates are removed for some unknown reason. If not, DELETE, and let her go to the annals of forgotten Porn history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillinthriller (talk • contribs) 09:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wikipedia's notability requirements does it say that "girl-on-girl" or "girl-on-boy XXX hardcore" is sufficient to confer notability on a subject? Squinge (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the GNG considering her plight received coverage from NBC News [40] and the Phoenix New Times [41] several years after initial coverage of her injury. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article as it is clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable awards or any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:49 CET.
Delete. There seems to be no case that the subject passes PORNBIO. That leaves only the question of whether the limited coverage of her injury/recovery is enough to satisfy the GNG, or whether it is of BLP1Eish nature and insufficient to sustain an article. The TV news piece does not appear to be coverage by the network news operation itself, itself, but a local news piece from an affiliate that was made available for reuse by other affiliates but not aired nationally. Therefore, I don't think it's sufficient to establish notability. There are many similarly circulated stories this time of year about people with elaborate Christmas displays on their homes, some recurring from year to year, and those don't justify individual bios. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Kole[edit]

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

No credible asserion of notability. Aticle is in all probability an autobiograpy. TheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It does look like WP:AUTOBIO. He's only been active for one year. One of the cites liked the music but said that he was almost unknown. WP:TOOSOON – Margin1522 (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, I agree WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Tonight[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 01:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was previously speedy deleted, but I did not tag it because I thought A7 did not include TV shows. Also, it doesn't seem to be an especially blatant hoax, so I didn't tag it as that either. In fact, the show has a website, [42] but no videos on its YouTube channel, [43] which makes this seem like it might be a hoax, but it also might just be new and obscure. Everymorning talk 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Johnson (special effects artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my article has been nominated for deletion. I have cited my references, and the article is connected to the article Linnea Quigley. I have linked all of the films that have pages; there are three that don't have pages, but they are part of the filmography. The gentleman my article is about has looked over the article and feels it is an accurate representation of his work. I continue to make changes, because I want to keep the article as current as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElmStreetsLastBrat (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person has won two Emmys. See also WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I lean to keep. Won two Emmys (though in group situations). He has won an award from Fangoria, nominated for 3 Saturn Awards, nominated for 1 Gemini Award, and won a Stiges award according to IMdb see here. IMdb has curated a number of news articles to go through that mention him here. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notability threshold reached by length of filmography and number of awards received and nominated. Maybe not extremely notable, but certainly notable enough considering WP:NOTPAPER. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His filmography, 2 Emmy Awards, and various other nominations alone should be sufficient enough material to make him noteworthy. He created Slimer for Ghostbusters! Other references to Steve include: Beckson Design Assoc, Makeup Magazine, LA Times, Steve's YouTube Channel Randall William Cook also worked on Ghostbusters, has fewer credits and has a page. Digitizit (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Academy award winner and sufficient status in his field to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still nearly completely fails WP:RS, so it fails WP:BLP. The Banner talk 21:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: Is it that you feel that the guides of WP:ANYBIO can be completely ignored? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, as WP:ANYBIO is "just" a guideline while WP:BLP is a policy. The Banner talk 12:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting position, thank you... however, as no one else here sees it failing WP:BLP, your simply asserting such without expanding on why you think so is not really helpful, specially as enough of the assertions of notability can be properly verified to meet WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Of particular interest is this quote: "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." From this section. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator As American subjects are often regarded more notable than non-USA subjects, this discussion is useless. The Banner talk 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC) No, this is not a withdrawal.[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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Torboss Underhill[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. The article does claim he "held various political offices in Westchester County", but doesn't say what they were, making it unlikely that they were significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holding political office at the county level of government is not a claim that gets a person over WP:NPOL, so his eligibility for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on either passing WP:SOLDIER, or being able to cite enough sources to get over WP:GNG. But the sources here aren't substantively about him — almost every one of them merely namechecks him, verifying his existence but failing to confer enough notability to warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:POLITICIAN. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll editorially redirect this to National Geographic as a possible misspelling. Sandstein 09:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalgeographic[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Tagged as unreferenced since 2006. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete normally I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Layourbattleaxedown, but that album appears to lack notability as well, which makes me wonder if The Concretes (1995–present) are notable at all. You wouldn't know it from their Wikipedia article. This EP fails WP:Music. After deletion, pointing this to National Geographic Society as a misspelling might be a good idea. --Bejnar (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with what Bejnar says. Don't look notable. Daniel298289 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G.M. Public School, Karachi[edit]

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

I question whether this purported school and/or school system does in fact exist. If it was established in 1999, it would presumably have some internet presence however small.

there is no home-page, not even free website hosting sites, for this purported school and/or school system
there is no news, not even just passing mentions, in English language online news for this purported school and/or school system. (Very strong "nota bene": this does not take into account any mentions in Urdu language media)
A google search for "G.M. Public School, Karachi" + site:*.gov.pk" yields no results at all.
While Facebook pages can occasionally be considered as reliable sources, in this case it cannot. The facebook page and its links for this school and/or school system are its solitary mentions. Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find a school of the same name in Rourkela, India, listed in several textbooks available on GBooks as having approved it or supported the book. That school itself doesn't appear to exist anymore. I can't find anything proving this school in Pakistan even exists. G+ and facebook appear to have autogenerated pages for it. The G+ one uses a much more specific address that we have for it, so I don't think it acquired it from Wikipedia, unsure whats going on there, however that address leads to a position on a map which is on top of a Mosque. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified. (but the co-location of a mosque and a school is not altogether implausible) DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for the address given by Google turns up the "Moon Light Grammar School', which may be an alternate name, or may be a different school in the same neighborhood. I didn't actually find any usable sources for that name, though. Searching for the only named person associated with the school turns up this: Man on mission- wants to produce 200 children. He is described as a school teacher, so who knows. The Facebook page mentions "SARAIIKI STUDENT FEDRETION", which sounds similar to "Saraiki Student Organization", which is/was an ethnic-based student org at Karachi University, mentioned at All Pakistan Muttahidda Students Organization. Or maybe not. Right now there isn't even enough information to figure this out. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to exist. Becky Sayles (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanavugal IAS Academy[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced one sentence stub. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google search indicates that Kanavugal IAS Academy is an entrance exam coaching school. I'm not finding much else on this recently founded institution. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the name and as Gene93k points, it look like a coaching center. Unnotable. They are thousands of such coaching centers in every small city in India. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -So they founded a coaching center and came on Wikipedia to promote it? Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Valdes (actor)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; doesn't (yet) meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euro RSCG Worldwide PR[edit]

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

Euro RSCG Worldwide is unquestionably notable and has its own article. This page on "Euro RSCG Worldwide PR" is an individual division/subsidiary that may warrant inclusion in the main company's page, but is far from reaching the advice given at WP:LENGTH for creating a sub-article. The citations given are regarding the mother ship and Google searches only reveal brief mentions as one of the company's divisions. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per its parent company, it appears to be called Havas PR now. Website is here. It's president also has an article Marian Salzman. I found some regional coverage of Havas PR in Manchester Evening News here, and some industry focused coverage in trade mags and smaller online publications such as Mumbrella and CampaignBrief. JT_dale^Talk~ 10:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to an early renomination Wifione ^Message 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herogiri[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Here I can't see any reliable sources other than those unreliable tweets. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Future films with no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources doesn't pass our notability threshold for films. Clear TOOSOON case. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 sources have been added after the nomination, but it's not multiple for me. However, the article can be re-created once film start receiving good coverage. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The issue was related to principal photography as a proof of the film's existence. There are indeed references in the article (other than those tweets) which belong to TOI, one of India's leading news agencies. There is also an iTunes link indicating about the audio release and a link to a video of the motion poster by the official YT channel of the production house. The film features some leading actors from Tollywood and hence, is notable. -- Bubaikumar (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Filming has commenced and the film topic is receiving coverage. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: In the current state it doesn't meet our standards. All those unreliable tweets and youtube links doesn't demonstrate notability. Two sources of TOI is not enough for a film that is yet to release and remember WP:NOTNEWS. While you say "film topic is receiving coverage" but I don't see how. If you can, please try to add some reliable sources, but not WP:SPS. (Note to closing admin/editor. Bubaikumar is the creator of this article.) Bubaikumar, the film features leading actors of Tollywood doesn't mean the film is notable. Remember WP:NOTINHERIT. I may change my mind if some one could improve this article per WP:HEY. Jim Carter 13:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD Herogiri Rabi Kinagi Dev Koel Mallick Sayantika Banerjee Mithun Chakraborty

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. Wifione ^Message 10:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devuan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Only a proposed software fork at this point. Not yet notable. PROD declined by an IP. I would respond to the IP's reasoning by invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safiel (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoneME. There's no indication of notability beyond the current news cycle here; an eventual redirect (whether to Debian or to systemd) will probably be added in due course, but that's all that this warrants. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that different from GoneME, there are articles from many different sources about Devuan and it is a manifestation of a larger political backlash against activities around systemd. Before deleting, it might be wiser to wait whether this prophecy of Devuan being shortlived actually comes true.85.212.86.124 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only difference is that the ecosystem of sites that would pick up news like this within a given cycle has grown substantially since then. Regardless, this is presently content-free, and in the unlikely even that the subject later becomes notable the article can be trivially recreated from scratch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSOFT Complies with "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." The Register, PCWorld, and others like Phoronix, ITWire, Softpedia can be found searching devuan. Anyway, it is necessary to update and rewrite the article, it is not a proposed software, it is being developed at Github.--GM83 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote because I'm biased (plus I have no sense of formalism), but I would like to note that Linux journalism is rather scatterbrained. Each new release of Fedora gets fanfare. Every slip from some Microsoft executive is trumpeted far and wide. A lot of sources are just trying, from day to day, to find something - anything - to say. If systemd debates fuel their writing, then they'll spawn as many articles as they can to pander like gossip magazines at a grocery checkout. While development is active, there's a lot of betting up in the air as to how long they can sustain a whole distribution with their manpower. That said, it's true that they have a substantial presence in the form of third-party sources. It's entirely possible they will become very notable in a few month's time. Danny Sepley (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sufficient coverage now exists in WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nemexia (game)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. The game claims to have more than 2 million players, but this is not backed up by any source. A Google search suggests some popularity, particularly in Europe, but I failed to find enough significant or reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It doesn't said 2 million players, it said 2 million registrations for 5 years period but I've removed it because this is internal data and as you said there are no public sources that can back it up - C.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel.daniel (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up a few incidental mentions and one blog review but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gets lots of German and Polish hits in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search. Dunno if they're useable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG there's no limitation that notability can only be conferred by English-speaking journalists, and there appears to be sufficient coverage in the non-English RSes: Several in-depth articles on different games in the series at the Polish GameZilla, coverage from Gry-online (1), and a review score from Click.pl. It looks like Gamestar.de is pretty short on coverage but it might be usable for release details (date of release, director, developer, etc.), and there are at least two decent articles at the Japanese 4gamer.net. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel.daniel: - Can you read Polish sources? If so I would be happy to show you how to use reliable sources to properly source articles which is the only way to ensure that they are not deleted. You can leave a note at my talk page if you like. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't have to be added to the article. It's definitely a good idea, but WP:NRV only requires that they exist. It would be helpful if we could get a Polish speaker to translate the articles, though. I don't really trust machine translations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

669 Radio Show[edit]

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

Radio program broadcast only on a single college radio station in a single market, and relying mainly on primary sources for referencing with the only independent sources being a community weekly newspaper and a blog. So it doesn't get over WP:NMEDIA just for existing — that takes national, not single-market, distribution — and the sources aren't even approaching good enough to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps there might be some college radio show that is notable, but there is no evidence this one is. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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