Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 December 27 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No sources meeting GNG seem to have been found. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Ngamayama[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, as I stated in the sources Ngamayama born in Poznan, Poland, second in Polish first division Ngamayama played 124 league matches. And so my on an article complies with Wikipedia. Regards.

Place of birth and matches in the first division

Wolfgang1212 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The I Liga is not fully pro (see WP:FPL) as is required for notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree GNG is borderline, most of the coverage is from minor regional papers. If another major source could be found then ping me and I'll take another look. GiantSnowman 11:31, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ejuddin[edit]

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

Unnotable person Summichum (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that if the claim is correct, then the person is pretty much inherently notable, given the importance of the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Summichum, I hope you're not on a mission to get rid of all of a certain editor's contributions. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -For a person to be notable, it is required that multiple secondary, independent and reliable must exist not that they are available/accessible right about now. Given that WP:INDAFD states, most of the Indian Newspaper archives do not store content for before 2000[..] and even now around this time, many urdu newspapers publishes their material online in form of images making it inaccessible with Google or any other search engine, it's very tough to find related sources. Subject lived in the 16th century. It is remarkable that he headed a notable religious Dawoodi Bohra community of millions of people spread world-wide for almost four years, thus it is very unlikely that he was not independently written about in multiple reliable sources. He definitely is notable, one however requires to find those sources and establish notability in his article. I've found one primary source that at least confirms the existence of the subject ([5]). Deleting this one would be a WP:Systematic bias, I think. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : No secondary sources availaible , hence notablility can't be proven, many Dais of Dawoodi bohra dont have a page , so what makes this more special to have a dedicated page? Summichum (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - observe, nominator does not vote. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG for being one 23rd Da'i al-Mutlaq. There is a book, The Bohras,[6] having more details about him. Ejuddin is not the only spelling, sometimes his last name is also written as Izzuddin.[7]-[8]-[9] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* How can being a 23rd dai make one notable considering the fact , that this post of dai is only notable now and not back then AFAIU. Also these sources have a passing mention of him which further substantiate that the person was not notable even back then.Summichum (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* It looks like the word "passing mention" is thrown out like a trash now. 3/4 of these citations contains his biography. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, please update this article with those references and removing any extraneous information, Also the last one is a self published source.Summichum (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a primary source, not self published. You really believe that an article must include any citations for proving its notability? Or you have to check before you nominate for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


* ok I remove my nomination , thanks for the research.Summichum (talk) 10:25, 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) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald MacLaren of MacLaren[edit]

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

Contested prod, there seems to be agreement that his diplomatic career is not sufficiently notable, so the issue is whether Scottish clan chiefs are inherently notable. Clan chief is now just a title with no powers, and not that important. Even in Scotland, many of the clans with chiefs are small and obscure, even many Scots people with some knowledge of the history of their clan could not tell you who the chief is, and I double if many of them currently have articles. We previously reached agreement that Lord Lieutenants are not inherently notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being both a clan chief and full ambassador seem adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ambassadors are not inherently notable, nor are clan chiefs, not are failing candidates, nor are the CEOs of small companies, nor are senior public servants. He doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL or any of the other inclusion criteria I could think of. If there's something I missed, I'm happy to reconsider but being non-notable in a range of fields does not make you collectively notable. St★lwart111 03:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clan chiefs have notability because they appear in sources such as Whitaker's Almanack. Ambassadors have notability because they appear in sources like the Diplomatic List and Europa yearbook. Having such prestige and status means the person appears in Who's Who and that's good enough for our purposes. Compare, for example, with professional footballers or Olympic athletes who get automatic entries as a matter of course when they have nothing like this level of coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the prevailing consensus; at least it hasn't been each time the notability of ambassadors has been discussed. Footballers and athletes are notable for other reasons - there is a presumption that they have been the subject of coverage as the member of a group/team, rather than individually - participating in sports at a level that receives international television coverage. Some footballers are on television every week, though they might not be the subject of individual coverage. You certainly can't say the same about ambassadors. St★lwart111 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whitaker's Almanack is an invaluable source precisely because it includes a lot of otherwise obscure information, including e.g. failed parliamentary candidates, I don't think a brief mention in this work or e.g. Who's Who confers automatic notability. PatGallacher (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A Google search only pulls up one RS article - and that article merely mentions him as a "colourful" candidate with no real chance of winning. I agree with conclusions drawn by St★lwart. --Enos733 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no inherent notability in either of his roles. Many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Carlmar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Bokmål Wikipedia article no:Otto Carlmar has more details, as does the biographical entry for him in the Historical Dictionary of Scandinavian Cinema, which notes that he "played an important role in Norwegian film production in the 1950s and 1960s". [10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos. Tomas e (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Producer and writer of some of the best known Norwegian films (e.g. Fjols til fjells). Manzzoku (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:05, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Magnusson[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nomination made in bad faith, as part of a rapid slew of AfD nominations, by a user offended by the AfD nomination of his own article. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts and FredrikT. Tomas e (talk) 12:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 03:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Louzil[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to IMBD, the subject has 13 directorial credits, which is 13 more credits than the average person. bd2412 T 19:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Toiling as he does in the super-low-budget world, sources about Louzil exist but have to be reviewed with some care to see if they qualify as the sort of independent reliable sources that convey notability. For example, Luke Ford, who probably qualifies as an expert in this area, has a chapter about Louzil in his 2004 book The Producers: Profiles in Frustration but the book is published by iUniverse and may not qualify.[11] A recent OC Weekly article notes in passing that "Director Eric Louzil has four films in the Troma library, along with the aforementioned Nuke 'Em High sequel, he also boasts two of the finest budget indie action films this side of "USA Up All Night." [12] More digging is in order. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the available sources that turn up in a Google Books search, I would keep this. For example:
  • Yuma's golden era of filmmaking is the late 1980s to the early 1990s, according to Yvonne Taylor, longtime director of the Yuma Film Office. Independent filmmaking increased during this time, bringing filmmakers such as Eric Louzil to town.
    • Lili DeBarbieri, Location Filming in Arizona: The Screen Legacy of the Grand Canyon State (2014), p. 79.
  • In August 1975, Keith agreed to appear in Sonic Boom, a comedy short made by UCLA film student Eric Louzil, about a supersonic jet that lands in a small town and creates hysteria about an impending sonic boom that never happens.
    • Andrew Neill, ‎Matthew Kent, Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere: The Complete Chronicle of the WHO 1958-1978 (2009), p. 262.
  • Eric Louzil, producer of Sizzle Beach, U.S.A., and now a low-budget director, recalls: "We always laugh about that scene. He had to make love to the director's wife in front of a fireplace. He was real nervous and stiff. He kissed her, but it was like he wasn't into it."
    • Todd Keith, Kevin Costner: the Unauthorized Biography (1994), p. 49.
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 18:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Levinsohn[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (vent) @ 20:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning delete - well, it certainly does not meet criteria t WP:CREATIVE. For a BLP there needs to be a lot more sources. It's poor form to create a stub like this. Has the creator been approached? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Badly written article doesn't equal delete. WP:BEFORE. See [13], [14]. NY Times has a more reliable list of his filmogaphy here [15]. JTdaleTalk~ 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Tomas e (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's produced a number of notable films, and was nominated for an Oscar for Saving Private Ryan. -- Calidum 03:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Garfield[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 20:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 20:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Tomas e (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely needs referencing improvement, but being a shortlisted nominee for a sovereign country's main film award (and main television award) is sufficient notability in and of itself. Keep and tag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was nominated for Genie and Gemini Awards. -- Calidum 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:08, 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. Consensus saw nothing worth merging on this small page. Shii (tock) 11:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation 'The Best Live' at Tokyo Dome[edit]

Girls' Generation 'The Best Live' at Tokyo Dome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a concert. There is nothing notable for it to have a separate Wikipedia article. WP:NTOUR TerryAlex (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a huge concert and it did go on the national news, its more than just a concert. — Preceding

unsigned comment added by 77.78.51.73 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user is just speaking from a fan's point of view. This is a one-time concert. The article lacks coverage and it certainly has no notability to be on Wikipedia.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 20:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No obvious notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a Girls' Generation related article, such as a list of tours, or to their discography section if that doesn't exist. Concerts are rarely notable and despite the huge attendance and venue (a kind of concert that some singers can only dream of), this is no exception, given that the coverage is has received is just reporting-type stuff. A merge however is a preferable alternative to deletion in this case, however, as long as a proper target exists. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NTOUR. One-off concert that does not appear to have generated any coverage in reliable sources. As for the merge suggestion--there is nothing to merge here; the article really contains nothing but notifications of announcements (no teasers this time?) and a set list; the only thing worth saving is the number of attendants, but that claim is not verified. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "number of attendants" has already been indicated within the group's main article (with sources). There is no point to merge/keep this article.--TerryAlex (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NTOUR. One brief mention in Korea media (any in Japanese media? it was held in Japan), plus three references to the artist's own sites (one via allkpop). There's nothing exceptional about this one-off concert that requires its own article, especially since this article contains no real information. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could fit as a nice little paragraph on SNSD's main page Asdklf; (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't know if the concert is notable enough to merit its own article yet. Maybe there could be a small blurb about the concert in the Girls' Generation article. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. First two google hits are wikipedia articles (that's always a bad sign). The rest of the first page of search results are a couple of Korean blogs, YouTube, and Tumblr. No objection to a merge and/or redirect if there was an appropriate target article. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 3 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. The information is already at American Airlines accidents and incidents, whether to redirect there is an editorial question.  Sandstein  12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 633[edit]

American Airlines Flight 633 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero notability as per WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GNG andjust about any other reason you can thinlk of Petebutt (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, was I the one who created this article, or? I really don't remember. Anyways, there is only one reference, a table, and text without pictures. I hereby vote this article for deletion. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahibdeep Nann (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect, per Ansh666. --doncram 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment The article and many/most of those linked from American Airlines accidents and incidents is misnamed, it should be something like "American Airlines Flight 633 accident of MONTH DAY, YEAR". The article is about one accident/incident, it is not about the Flight 633 which is a route that was presumably run many thousands of times, probably began on a certain date and could have been terminated or might still be running. Likewise American Airlines Flight 331 and lots of others should be renamed. The Flight 331 incident one is linked from the list-article with assertion that the accident occurred on 22 December 2009. Within the article it is really hard or impossible to discern what year the incident occured, and the day is stated to be different, as 23 December. And I agree many incidents should probably just be listed in the incidents list-article. All this seems kind of sloppy to me. --doncram 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - it is standard practice hereabouts to name accident articles using the flight number, the year is only added if that flight has more than one accident in the same year. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is off-track relative to this AFD. But, rrrright, i am aware of the naming practice. It seems inadequate everywhere, for American Airlines incidents and all other airlines' incidents. I see your point that a year-date or a more specific date is not needed in the name of an article, unless to distinguish vs. another incident for the same airline and flight number. But the name should include "incident" or "accident", e.g. it should be "American Airlines Flight 633 accident". The name is coined within Wikipedia; it is not referred to as "American Airlines Flight 633" in news reports or any other coverage. I looked at a safety incident report, one major source, in which it is very hard to find the flight number at all. What is more salient in a safety incident report is the type of airplane. That would be an alternative too: something like "Boeing 747 accident (2005)" or whatever. The airline and flight number combo, anyhow, does not seem to be the right name for Wikipedia to use in referring to an incident; the airline and flight number is a route that continues and is simply something different than one incident. Unless in general press one incident is referred to as exactly the name of the airline and flight number, and in effect the number is "retired" and understood to apply to the one incident, which I think is not usually the case in coverage. Better naming would label an incident correctly as an incident, in my opinion. --doncram 18:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just googled "AirAsia Flight 8501" and "Malaysian Airlines Flight 370", two recent high profile incidents and found countless news articles that refer to these flights by the airline/flight number, so I would argue this is often the case in coverage - unless there are special circumstances, a continuing flight number for a route is unlikely to be notable (WP:NOTDIR). Dfadden (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete as non-notable no need to redirect every possible non-notable accident. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MilborneOne....William 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is already mentioned in the article Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport with as much, if not more detail than is in this article. Non-notable in terms of a stand alone article. Dfadden (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nomination cites WP:AIRCRASH, even though that essay explicity says: "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting."
I think compliance with WP:BEFORE implies nominators should actually read and understand whatever wikidocuments they cite as arguments for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- I agree with User:Dfadden that Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport seems to provide adequate coverage of the references found so far. I disagree on the resulting action. Redirect, keeping revision history, not delete, serves the project best. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very non-notable airplane accident with no independent third-party sources, and no assertion of significance. All that is says is that there was a plane crash and that there was no injuries. It almost reads off like a news article - which is what Wikipedia is not. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you could speedy this article under WP:CSD G7 since the author of the article, Sahibdeep Nann, voted for the articles' deletion. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:45, 3 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:ORG criteria Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Three quick references from 2001, 2008 and 2013 from national dailies: in Times of India, in The New Indian Express, in The Hindu. Another reference discusses an event conducted by VIHE, Hyderabad in 2012 attended by 900 graduate students. --AmritasyaPutraT 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Times of India and New Indian Express just mention the institute in passing as location of events. They don't read on notability. The Hindu article doesn't mention the institute at all. The last source does mention the institute at a bit more length. But that was a poor showing, if that is the best you have. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's covering events conducted by the institute in the institute's campus. It is not passing mention. There is no need to repeat the name multiple times since the entire article is about it. Training institutes are covered for their conventions/conferences mostly and less for, their buildings, for example. The article has other references too. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. WP:INHERITORG. But I think your article doesn't do justice to the Institute. I understood more about it by reading their web site than your article. So, I wonder if you article is serving any purpose. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. This organization has been noticed by people outside.[16]-[17] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:ORGIN , the sources have been provided. -sarvajna (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no - there are almost no sources talking about the institution. mentioning it as a place where X happened is not what NOTABILITY is about. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conventions were conducted at the institute by the institute. "Place where X happened" is not correct interpretation. --AmritasyaPutraT 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As i wrote above, only one of those sources gives ~any~ discussion to the institute as having organized the event, and even that discussion is slight. in the others, it is little just the place where the event took place, with no further mention. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 24 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) 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I went through all the sources provided in the article; none of the secondary sources contain more than a passing mention of the institution, and therefore this fails to meet WP:ORG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "indialogue foundation" does not seem to be a secondary reliable source. The others have only a passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto on that. the indialogue ref is just another event hosted there; the content is all about indialogue's work. the hydexcust article is just another passing mention, and the Hindu article just mentions the director, and briefly. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that there are passing mentions and some relevance with multiple notable subjects, page is still well enough for a merge or redirect, not deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nope. per WP:ORG trivial mentions do not contribute to notability: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ...passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." none of the sources that you or anybody has brought is anything more than trivia - passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Times of India and New Indian Express should be good enough. Hafspajen (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen Please actually look at the refs you mention. they just mention the institute in passing. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And there is Express News Service too. Hafspajen (talk) 11:03, 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. Although Mishae never came out and stated it, it's clear he's arguing to keep. Still, the preponderance of opinion here is that this doesn't meet WP:GNG or the provisions of WP:NSPORT. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gouthro[edit]

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

His playing career does not denote notability per WP:NHOCKEY. He also fails as a coach because he has never coached a team, he has been a goaltending coach. And contrary to what the article says he is not a coach with the Calgary flames, he is only a goaltending coach for their AHL affiliate. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton: Have you looked at the third sentence of the first ref? I clearly says there:

Scott Gouthro, 33, has joined the Calgary Flames organization and will be the goalie coach for the AHL’s Adirondack Flames.

--Mishae (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It says he will be the goaltending coach for the Adirondack Flames, not the Calgary Flames. The Adirondack Flames are part of the Calgary Flames organization. In any case, that wouldn't make him notable anyway. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tchaliburton: What about coaching of Paralympians? Like I found plenty of refs which I put in Further reading section since I don't know where they fit. Like, maybe he doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY but what about GNG???--Mishae (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that sledge hockey falls under WP:NHOCKEY. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding Paralympians, but I suspect that a goaltending/video coach would not be inherently notable. He would need to meet WP:SPORTCRIT or, as you suggest, WP:GNG. But the coverage has to go beyond WP:ROUTINE. I don't see the coverage needed. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tchaliburton: Yes, he wont be notable for being just a coach however he was covered by the Chronicle Herald twice, and that's not a daily newspaper. ;)--Mishae (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's still nowhere near satisfying WP:SIGCOV. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Sledge hockey is a sport not covered at all by NSPORTS, and sledge hockey competitors must satisfy the GNG. Minor league assistant coaches are indeed not inherently notable. As far as the Paralympics goes, the source plainly states that he "worked" with the team, not that he was an official coach of the team. Nonetheless, while I agree that he meets none of the applicable SNGs, the sources in the article discuss the subject in the significant detail the GNG and SIGCOV requires. It's a common fallacy that WP:ROUTINE debars sports coverage, which it in fact does not: it debars routine day-to-day match coverage and sports scores. Ravenswing 23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - First off, I changed two inaccurate statements. He was not a goalie with Cape Breton for nine years, he was a coach for that long. And no, he is not a coach with the Calgary Flames. He is a coach with the Adirondack Flames. My weak delete vote comes from the fact that the coverage I can see is almost exclusively local coverage from small-time papers in Cape Breton and Adirondack. I could be pushed to neutral if those sources were used to creates something a little more meaty, or to a weak keep if some wider coverage can be demonstrated. Resolute 00:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in his coaching career seems to grant him automatic notability and he lacks the coverage required by GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:56, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 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, Michig (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria for hockey players or coaches. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage as required by WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 03:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astro-Physics[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No substantial reference provided. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Its about a company not astrophysics as you have suggested to redirect. Doesn't make sense to redirect.Lakun.patra (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I suppose it is a plausible search term for someone trying to arrive at the astrophysics article, so while in essence the article about this company would be gone, we would leave a redirect in its place for a different reason. "Pepper" @ 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable manufacturer of telescopes and telescope mounts. Ajh1492 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything at all to support that claim? St★lwart111 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – From visiting the company's website, the impression I get is a small company that may not have much market share but does make high-quality products for discerning users. According to the website, they have two user groups on Yahoo, which I visited and they seem to be active. If someone wants to save this article, that would be a good place to ask about what makes the company notable. We'd need published secondary sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and I'm happy to accept that they are a non-notable manufacturer of high-quality telescopes and telescope mounts. I'm not taking anything away from the products they make, but high-quality products do not make a company notable. St★lwart111 01:39, 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, Mr.Z-man 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Harrington, Philip S. (2011-02-05). Star Ware: The Amateur Astronomer's Guide to Choosing, Buying, and Using Telescopes and Accessories (4 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 96. ISBN 978-0471750635. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The book notes:

      Astro-Physics. Astro-Physics is a name immediately recognizable to the connoisseur of fine refractors on rock-steady mounts. Owners Roland and Majorie Christen introduced their first high-performance instruments in the early 1980s and effectively revived what was then sagging interest in refractors among amateur astronomers. Now, two decades later, Astro-Physics refractors remain unsurpassed by any other apochromat sold today.

      As this edition of Star Ware is published, Astro-Physics is redesigning its line of refractors. Only the 160EDF, an exceptional 6.3-inch f/75 instrument, remains at present. Therefore, rather than offer speculation here, I'll ask that you visit the chapter 5 supplemental material found in the Star Ware section of www.philharrington.net. Information, test reports, and owner comments will be posted and analyzed there as the information becomes available. But two things are likely, given Astro-Physics' past record of performance. First, any instrument wearing the Astro-Physics name will undoubtedly be the finest of its kind. However, because of high demand and limited production, delivery will likely take years. Considering the nearly instant availability of fine apo refractors from Takahashi and Tele Vue, waiting that long for an Astro-Physics refractor is difficult to justify.

    2. English, Neil (2012-08-30). Classic Telescopes: A Guide to Collecting, Restoring, and Using Telescopes of Yesteryear. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 184–185. ISBN 978-1461444237. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The book notes:

      In the 1980s and 1990s, Astro-Physics optical designs continue to innovate with each new design, new levels of performance were achived. The quality of construction of the tube assemblies, sophistication of the mounts and range of accessories have also improved year upon year.

      Although most amateurs associate Astro-Physics with triplets, the company also churned out a limited run of double ED refractors (Fig. 10.6). Jeff Morgan, a telescope maker and avid observer based in Prescott, Arizona, was kind enough to share his experiences regarding his recent purchase of an older 120 mm doublet Astro-Physics refractor offered between 1990 and 1992:

      [long quote from Jeff Morgan]

      In the late 1990s, Astro-Physics also offered even smaller travel 'scopes for the discerning amateur astronomer on the move. Prominent among them were the Astro-Physics Traveler, a 105 mm F/6 triplet apochromat and, at about half the size, the 90 mm f/5 'Stowaway.' Even by today's standards, these instruments are so well thought of that their price tags on the used market have, until very recently, appreciated (Fig. 10.7).

    3. Mollise, Rod (2009). Choosing and Using a New CAT: Getting the Most from Your Schmidt Cassegrain or Any Catadioptric Telescope. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-387-09772-5. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The book notes:

      Astro-Physics (A-P) is almost legendary in the amateur astronomy community, mainly because of the outstanding apochromatic refractors this Illinois company produces. Surprisingly, A-P is also revered by CAT users due to its line of heavy-duty go-to GEMs, mounts with sterling reputations for quality and capability,. A-P produces a full line of mounts, led by the newly introduced 3600GTO, the El Capitan, a monster of a GEM that is able to support scopes weighing up to 250 pounds.

    4. Gary, Alex (2006-10-26). "High-end telescope maker goes under microscope". Rockford Register Star. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
    5. "Get a closer look at the heavens with telescope made here". Rockford Register Star. 2006-07-20. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
    6. "Astro-Physics to be profiled on TV show". Rockford Register Star. 2006-12-25. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Astro-Physics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Another book source (Choosing and Using a New CAT: Getting the Most from Your Schmidt Cassegrain or Any Catadioptric Telescope) added. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – On the basis of the new cites and edits by Cunard. The Star Ware book got good reviews in Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and Sky & Telescope has a link to the book's home page. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: I disagree, the more likely target for the search "Astro-Physics" is "astrophysics". The company, disambiguated with the "Inc." per guideline, nicely quoted above, can have a dab hatnote on the Astrophysics page. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No disambiguation is needed because Astro-Physics and astrophysics reside at different titles.

    Using a method at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?, a Google search for Astro-Physics returns both links about the company and links about astrophysics. Links about the astrophysics topic are correctly spelled "astrophysics" and not misspelled "Astro-Physics". The company Astro-Physics is the primary topic for the title "Astro-Physics".

    If users misspell astrophysics as Astro-Physics, they can access astrophysics through the hatnote at the top of the article. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic is exactly the correct question. Primary topic should not be based on "correct spellings" but on where the majority of reader/searches want to end up. --Bejnar (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those sources found above (passing WP:CORPDEPTH. No move necessary. This would be the primary topic for "Astro-Physics" and any confusion could be cleared up via a hatnote. A primary topic doesn't automatically take over all possible punctuation and capitalization variations. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Parisot[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability for ambassadors. I could find no indepth coverage. He has a French namesake which comes up in coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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, Michig (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ambassadors are not inherently notable and diplomats need to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable. In this case, the coverage is more about his post-diplomatic career but that doesn't devalue the coverage. That reliable sources have considered it appropriate to track his career is sufficient for me. St★lwart111 03:57, 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.  Sandstein  11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Saint Helena, London[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. this does not even have embassy or consulate status. And it is only an office within the building pictured not the whole building. Diplomatic missions are not inherently notable. This was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Representative of Montserrat, London LibStar (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches for this office on the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph websites didn't provide any sources. A Google search also doesn't find anything useful looking. I imagine that there's a highly viable article on the topic of the relationship between Saint Helena's government and the UK government, and trade, etc arrangements between Saint Helena and the UK to be written (Politics of Saint Helena and its related articles aren't very comprehensive), but this isn't it, and isn't the best basis for such an article. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 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, Michig (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - diplomatic missions are not inherently notable. St★lwart111 03:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. -- Calidum 05:37, 3 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 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Skateboarding Association[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. A search finds a couple of published books, which looks good; but they merely mention it in a list of organisations. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but came up dry. Everything was either a passing mention or self-published. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a member of WP:SKATE, I can tell you there are a number of notable international skateboarding organisations and collectives. They are recognisable by their significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't one of them. St★lwart111 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, - I did find 2-3 books but as noted above they're all basically mentions of company's associated with Skateboarding. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might say Merge if there is a similar article to put it in. If not, delete it. 46.64.164.54 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Calidum 03:20, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Pandit Dhar[edit]

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

10 Years and still no references. A single line BIO stub. Doesn't appear to be notable to me. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are correct, I was dumb of me, I missed the 19th century part. The reference you mentioned is a valid one even if it seems that he is briefly mentioned, I noticed there are other books that mention the subject, so if they are added to the article I would change my recommendation to keep. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"there are other books that mention the subject, so if they are added to the article I would change my recommendation to keep." -User:Crystallizedcarbon sorry but that isn't how AFD works. Please see relevant guidelines on the purpose of AFD and notability, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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, Michig (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From what I can tell, "Mirza Pandit Dhar" is also referred to as "Mirza Pandit" judging by actions and associations credited to each, and seems to have played a major role in the liberation of Kashmir. The latter has more sources, but I'm reluctant to act on them fearing my own ignorance. Nonetheless, I found a few refs for Mirza and added one to the article along with a tiny bit more detail. Worth checking out to find more: 1, 2 (and I haven't yet checked Scholar/HighBeam/Questia...). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:16, 2 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jaweed Azmath[edit]

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

Not notable for a separate article. Can be mentioned in 9/11 article if need arises. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is probably an article somewhere that could touch on the imprisonment of these three men, but WP:EVENT and WP:BLP1E are relevant and we normally would not create a stand-alone article for a WP:PERP or WP:VICTIM with this type of coverage. Not sure if WP:UNDUE applies to templates, but listing them in Template:9-11 hijackers seems a bit excessive. - Location (talk) 19:23, 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, Michig (talk) 15:55, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ameena case[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines.Mostly a press release. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 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, Michig (talk) 15:49, 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 redirect to FXCM. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFX[edit]

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

Non notable & promotional. The references are apparently either general, mere listings, or its own website. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Although I'm not very enthusiastic about it. There are dozens of sites that offer FX information, but this seems to be one of the largest and best known. It was mentioned often in passing by introductory investment titles in Google Books as a place for useful information – news aggregation, charts, glossary, event calendar, etc. The cites were poor, e.g. the Handelsblatt cite with one post hoc comment by an analyst on why the market did something. However, I don't think the article is all that promotional. The company itself appears to be mainly a service for customers of its parent company, one of the largest FX brokers. Give the customers a reason to make an FX trade. The Alexa ranking and most of the footnotes could be trimmed. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:08, 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 08:36, 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, Michig (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a NN product of FXCM, and should be simply redirected to that article. The product has no individual notability as best I can tell. -- Y not? 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: obscure trading tool in a market where close to 90% of people lose money. While 'keep' criteria are weakly met, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution and not give this stuff too much "airtime". --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:55, 2 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Damon[edit]

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

This seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:N(E). While the storm broke some records for rainfall, the impact was relatively minimal for a nor'easter. The numbers for those without power are at 50,000, which is pretty low. Both deaths were also indirect deaths, caused by car accidents. I find it highly unlikely that this storm will be discussed, in the media, or among meteorologists, much after a couple days. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have there been many other winter storm articles that have used the (bogus IMHO) Weather Channel (TWC) naming system? In my expereince, almost no one but TWC will be referring to these winter storms by these names now & in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been at least one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus (deleted). Winter Storm Nemo is a redirect as an unofficial name. Winter Storm Freyr redirects to The Weather Channel. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and I was going to move it, but I figured that we should conduct the AfD first; if the consensus is keep, then we can move it, but there's no point moving it if it's just going to end up deleted. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move - Article is well sourced, and if it should not be kept, it should be moved to "2014 extreme weather events", as 2013 extreme weather events has an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The issue is not a lack of sources, but that the event was only talked about briefly while it was actually happening (see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). I'm also not convinced it should be moved to 2014 extreme weather events, because the storm was not an extreme event. It had a minimal impact, and the only records it broke were daily records over the past 40 years. It did not set any all-time daily records, and it did not break any all-time records. Furthermore, 2014 extreme weather events does not exist, and moving this over to be its sole entry, without being vastly expanded, would have the same effect as just keeping the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:10, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:30, 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, Michig (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not a notable storm (2.5" of rain isn't that much; it was just a record for a few sites on that particular day of the year), and winter storm naming is a TWC gimmick that no official agency recognizes.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not assert why the subject is notable, and the storm does not have very much significant coverage. Your average run of the mill snowstorm. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:37, 3 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. I am closing this as delete, despite lingering doubts about possible notability. The article as it currently stands is basically irredeemable: it reads like a CV, is full of unsourced stuff, and much of what is there really is trivial (society memberships and such). Hence: delete per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation of a well-sourced article, if notability can be shown unequivocally. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dafin F. Muresanu[edit]

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

As far as the sources presented are concerned, there really is no indication of encyclopedic notability. At first, this looks promising, but it's actually a press release, and in any case isn't really quotable. This is an independent source, but only has passing mention of the subject. Other than that, the sources are all connected with the subject.

I do think there's a chance this individual may be notable, but we do need a discussion first. If someone can show evidence of notability as defined by WP:PROF or WP:BIO, I'd be glad to reconsider, but that just isn't apparent at the moment. - Biruitorul Talk 01:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He may be notable, but it is difficult to tell with all the apparent puffery here. For instance, I believe that none of the long list of memberships in societies count for much; they belong in a cv, not in an encyclopedia article. In particular becoming a member (not fellow) of AAAS is something anyone who cares to subscribe to Science does. Being a Fellow of ANA seems superficially to be more promising, but their membership requirements make it clear that this level of membership is open to all tenured faculty; that is, it is not the highly selective honor considered by WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix up. I agree with the above comment that too much of what is here is CV material. Also, most of the assertions about positions and membership are as yet unsourced. I cleaned up a few refs and added some 'cite needed' notes. The citations need to be brought more into line with WP:CITE (e.g. include dates and full article titles), not just for pedantic purposes but because it makes it easier to tell what is being cited. I also recommend leaving the first paragraph as the introductory material, and creating a section immediately after with a heading like "Professional activity". Right now the intro is too long, and the remainder of the article is only lists. It'll look much better with a shorter intro and more text. Of the lists, I would leave only the major awards (although each needs a citation), and perhaps a selected list of books (but not all). At that point it should look like a good WP article for an academic. (I'll start the talk page with these suggestions.) LaMona (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – My feeling is that he's probably notable, but it's hard to tell. Perhaps WP:NPROF #C6 for President of the Romanian Society of Neurology. He's a prolific author, but only one paper with 100 cites in GS and cites go down rapidly from there. The scientific achievements are hard for a lay person to decipher. I have no idea how significant they are. The article should say. I agree that the CV stuff should be trimmed drastically. At least move the awards and memberships out of the lead. The "Information related to scientific activity" section should be rewritten as a text paragraph, which could replace a lot of the CV material. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:11, 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 08:26, 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, Michig (talk) 15:34, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Rojewski[edit]

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

My original prod stated "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Deprodded by creator after the following expansion: [21]. I still think it fails, per WP:NOTNEWS: passing coverage in sources of poor reliability and few seconds of spotlight on tv is not enough, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 19 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) 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am afraid I do not see any notability per WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 26 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) 14:29, 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 redirect to Ulrike Ottinger. (non-admin closure) Arfæst! 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die Blutgräfin (film)[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources that this film actually exists. JDDJS (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The film's director (or at least someone claiming to be the film's director) has tried several times to blank the article because the original plans were scrapped. (Hence the reason that WP:NFF requires that a film at least have begun principal photography before the article is created.) No film has yet been made, and whether or not any film will be made is still debatable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Sorry nominator but it seems the film as topic does exist and has received coverage. Along with the poor sourcing in the Wikipedia article itself we do have Bloody-Disgusting.[22] What else was missed in WP:BEFORE?? At the minimum, policy suggests this sourcable topic could be redirected, but I'll look further before returning to offer my !vote. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: It does appear the topic of this film's planning (enough for a redirect to filmmaker) was covered in 2010,[23][24][25][26][27] but was it ever filmed and completed? More digging. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ulrike Ottinger. Per available sources , it can be mentioned there as one of his planned projects that has not (yet) been filmed. If it ever is completed, a new article can be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:19, 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, Michig (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. As far as I can tell, this project doesn't exist. (And, if it does, it looks like it'll be a low-budget German gore flick of doubtful notability to en.wi.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:31, 2 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbidden Forest[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books), lacks sufficient references to works where this book has been the subject. No indication of major awards or anything else that might demonstrate notability warranting a dedicated article. RadioFan (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets most of the criteria, not least #1. Smetanahue (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first reference is a reasonable one but the 2nd one is unclear. Is this a published literary magazine or simply a blog? I dont speak Romanian. RadioFan (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean România literară it's a magazine published by the Writers' Union of Romania. There is also a list of references at the end of the Facts on File entry. Smetanahue (talk) 12:28, 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 speedy delete. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have speedy-deleted under CSD A7. From the deleted revision history, it is apparent that the main contributors are sockpuppets of a blocked user; as such, speedy deletion would also have been valid under CSD G5. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Rawat[edit]

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

Outright hoax. Not mentioned at all in the given references, no hits on IMDB, only self-published Facebook/Twitter/VK/etc hits on Google. Kolbasz (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete References cited don't even include his name. Google search comes up with nothing more than social media. Plus article creator's username seems to include his full name as one word, suggesting affiliation to article's subject. DiscantX (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I've tagged it under A7. There are just 1930 hits on Google for "Aravind Rawat", definitely not happening. Cannolis (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone notice it is an AUTOBIO as well? It was originally created by Aravindrawatofficial (diff), and few mins later moved by Jimfbleak on creator's userpage (diff.) but then subject comes from another account Thearavindrawat and move it back to mainspace (diff) and we're having the article here at afd now (see also, the first version). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - nothing to substantiate this article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:52, 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 merge to List of Pokémon (546–598). The nom is admonished to provide a clearer rationale in any future AfDs. Having said this, once an article is at AfD, an insufficient nom is not a good reason to !vote either way. In all, the merge arguments seem strongest. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanillite, Vanillish, and Vanilluxe[edit]

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

Notability. Pelliesh (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k, should be "video games" not "games", no? czar ⨹ 03:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the nom address the problem you see with the sources? Given there are a lot of sources that seem reliable (though perhaps not on topic? I don't know the area), I assume there is something seen as flawed with the sourcing? Hobit (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm with Hobit--- a bare "Notability" is a junk nomination. What policy or guideline do you think this article violates and how? Nha Trang Allons! 19:12, 12 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 00:21, 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, Michig (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep not a fan of Pokemon-stuff, but "notability" is an obvious inadequate rationale for an article plenty of reliable sources. Cavarrone 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Pokémon (546–598). I agree that the one-word nomination is unhelpful, but while we're here and the discussion is stagnant and unfounded, there is no actual significant coverage of these few Pokémon or any claim to their exceptionality apart from regular Pokémon coverage. Every single article used here is but a passing mention of the topic aggregated (refbombed) to make it look like the character has coverage when it doesn't. Being mentioned a dozen times as a ridiculous idea for a Pokémon is not notability sufficient for its own article, though the most important blurbs can be merged into the list of Pokémon—this topic doesn't require anything more than that. As for the strong keeps above, I do not see what policy basis they stand upon. Mentioning the general notability guideline without specifying what sources constitute sigcov is but a vague wave. czar ⨹ 17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally the nom needs to tell us what's wrong. The vague wave there is where the problem starts. In any case, I agree a lot of the sources have limited coverage (a line or three), but about 1/6th of [28] is about these three. A large number of those sources cover these three because of the perceived "poor design" [29] for example. And some do so in reasonable detail (a paragraph or so) [30]. This would raise to the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources" to me. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listicles confer no special notability on video game characters. Their contents are totally devoid of any exceptional traits—they are simply a presentation of a collection of things. The Huffpo article says literally nothing about VVV and the Kotaku is a passing mention. If all of these sources are together drawn out, we could possibly eke out a single paragraph on how this character is chastised as a lazy design, but there is absolutely nothing to add apart from that. Precedent for the hundreds of other Pokémon is to merge such inconsequential coverage into a concise summary at the topic's list entry. czar ⨹ 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listicles are still articles and still coverage. In this case reliable, indpendent coverage. The huffingtonpost article/listicle certainly does have coverage of all 3 btw. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. A huffpo article about a topic is not equivalent to being mentioned in a huffpo listicle. There has to be enough content to say something! and that is invariably not the case in listicles. As an example and for posterity, I'm quoting (in toto) the huffpo listicle "coverage" you're defending:

8 Vanillite
Type: Ice
Skill: Breathing freezing air at -58 degrees Fahrenheit.
This … is an ice cream cone. Has anyone at Nintendo (or Game Freak, the company that creates Pokemon for Nintendo) ever had an ice cream cone before? Do they know how fragile ice cream cones are? How easily they melt? How do they expect this frozen treat to stand up against anything?

9 Vanillish
Type: Ice
Skill: Freezes enemies and hides from them in ice particles it creates.
You, uh, made the ice cream cone bigger. … I see.

10 Vanilluxe
Type: Ice
Skill: Expels a blizzard at foes.
"Hi, welcome to Dairy Queen, what can I get you today?" "Um, yes, hi. I'd like a small twist cone and a Vanilluxe, please. And can I have extra napkins with that?" Come on.

This is not coverage, for purposes of the general notability guideline or otherwise. czar ⨹ 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's certainly coverage. Reliable and independent. You claimed there was none which is the only reason I brought it up. The point of the article is that these are weird/poorly designed. And, in all seriousness, you are in violation of our policies on non-free content. We'd not allow that long of a quote in an article, it certainly isn't suitable for non-articles space (where we are much much more conservative). Hobit (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a brief excerpt well within the scope of fair use, and I believe it makes my point. Nothing else to add. czar ⨹ 23:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources I've cited above. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Listicle appearances are next to worthless. Incredibly minor fictional character. - hahnchen 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but with each individual name redirecting to List of Pokémon (546–598)). There are hundreds of these things, and maybe two or three are notable enough for their own articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list article as suggested above. The cited coverage seems to be mostly about lists of Pokémon among which are these; we should approach the matter similarly.  Sandstein  11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Pokémon (546–598). Yes, there are lots of refs, but they're all junk. I spot-checked the first six. All of them are niche blogs (so, hardly qualify as reliable source, and even then, only give passing reference to these characters. Hobit calls out the HuffPo article as a particularly good source, so I took a look at that also. In general, I would consider HuffPo to be a reliable source, but the article itself, again, only gives passing mention; they are cited by name once, in the last sentence of the 4th paragraph. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 3 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyur Rahman[edit]

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

No notable works identified except an attack on him. Does not meet WP:1E. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, A number of independent sources appear to be discussing him. The extent of his involvement in the events must be made clearer. Karst (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree, none of the source is discussing about him, those are only discussed about the attack on him and the arrest of four blogger although he was not arrested. No works identified his significance and the article was created by him which caused WP:COI. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 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, Michig (talk) 14:04, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyhus Communications[edit]

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

Citations give the appearance that the article is well-sourced, whereas a deeper investigation shows that they are just brief mentions, trivial rankings/awards, a press release, routine executive appointments announcements, and minor local coverage. A search in the leading trade magazine[31] reveals only similar sources (routine executive appointments, etc.) According to O'Dwyers[32] they have only 19 employees. A 19-person PR firm would have to do something pretty unusual/rare to gain notability.

Article is hopelessly promotional, such that even if they were notable, it would be better to start-fresh. CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In 2011 I commented on problems with this article. Nothing has changed. None of the sources establish notability. Nothing in the article's content establish notability. No attempt is made to meet any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (What's with all the PR companies needing Wikipedia pages? Anyway...). Nominated Seattle Post Globe by same user for AfD.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an ad (surprise!). Company does not appear notable. -- Calidum 05:38, 3 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. This is the wrong venue for draft namespace pages. Please try WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 20:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Umer Farooq[edit]

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

Non notable Saqib (talk) 13:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Fawcett[edit]

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

Article on an author does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria or GNG. Person co-authored a handful of shared-world fiction a decade ago. Only refs are to Publishers Weekly book descriptions, and a fleeting and incidental reference in the Los Angeles Times. (Also, as an aside unrelated to the AfD, note that editor claiming to be subject of this article complains the bio is inaccurate, "professionally damaging" and causing him "financial harm.") BlueSalix (talk) 18:38, 30 November 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 November 30. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. It's worth noting that Bill Fawcett, I believe, is the one who made the comment on the board. "Quinn Fawcett" is the apparent name of the "team" or "writing duo" of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Bill Fawcett. The former also fails to clear the hurtle of notability as well, but that's a different page perhaps. Anyhow, not much coverage (substantial, something other than standard PW review, etc.) for his books or him.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. The problem is that there has been no official consensus that trade reviews don't count towards notability, although there is a general consensus that they are greatly depreciated in comparison to longer, meatier reviews by other outlets. I think that this is partially because some of the trade reviews won't review anything they're handed and do give negative reviews. There has been the idea that trade reviews solicit books and are guaranteed to give positive reviews and Kirkus is a good example of how bad trade review outlets can be, however there are exemplary ones like the Library Journal and Booklist that do argue that trades can still be usable. However in this case what we have is an author (supposedly) that has taken to a BLP board to complain that someone is writing negative things about him. (I can't see what in the original article about him (Bill Fawcett (writer)) was so negative, personally.) Anyway, my thing is that the books in this article could very easily be merged into the existing article for Quinn Yarbro, who does pass notability guidelines. She's extremely prolific- so much so that I'd actually recommend creating a spin off article to include all of her written works (Chelsea Quinn Yarbro bibliography), which would easily be able to encompass the books under her various pseudonyms- it's reasonable to have a spinoff article for a bibliography if a notable author is particularly prolific. There's really no reason to have separate articles for a pseudonym when an easier alternative is available, especially if someone is complaining that something is harmful to their career. I'll try to bang out an article for her bibliography in my userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes- I had absolutely no idea that she'd written this much! A separate bibliography page has long since been overdue, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done- the bibliography is now live, so the article should redirect to Chelsea_Quinn_Yarbro#Pseudonyms, where lower down in the page there is a link for the full bibliography, which includes her work with Fawcett. The main page does say that she has worked with Fawcett, so this will comfortably contain the same information without really needing a separate page for the pseudonym. We also have the side benefit of having CQY's full bibliography (as far as I can tell), whereas her page could only contain a small portion of it due to her being so incredibly prolific when it comes to writing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's what he wants. 70.192.83.88 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find any mention of the volume of a writer's output lending anything to credibility via WP:AUTHOR. For the record, I think the argument of "Author X has written and published so many books, he is by default notable" a weak argument. Moreover, the issue isn't that a review in the NY Times Book Review is "meatier" than one in Kirkus, it's that the NY Times Book Review is a stronger source. That it has a better reputation. Been around longer. Has earned a better reputation. Has a better readership. That kind of stuff. Also, another thing for the record, it's excessive to list every book an author has published, especially if they are prolific, because, generally, there's a risk of veering into WP:RESUME, and lastly, reading some comments on the AfD lately, I have to say, (borrowed from elsewhere), words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense is rarely found.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not arguing for his article to be kept, just saying that CQY is notable and she's notable enough to where listing her bibliography would be worthwhile. Merging the series into the main page would make it fairly unwieldy, hence the page for CQY's work as a whole. I mean, they don't hand out the Bram Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement to just anyone, after all, and she's one of a fairly small handful of people who have been given the award. That kind of award is given to the person for their work as a whole, which is another reason why we should try to list as much as possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. First of all, we don't have an alternative process for handling joint pseudonyms of two notable authors; there is no primary redirect target, and there's no reliable way to assure that duplicated content in the separate bios would remain in synch and consistent. Better to treat this as no worse than a legitimate spinout article; it's not unusual to see articles like this for sustained collaborations between notable musicians. Second, the dismissal as insignificant of PW reviews is just plain wrong; Publisher's Weekly is quite selective in its choices of books to review, and there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability. Third, there seems to be a lot of coverage out there; the "author"'s books were also regularly reviewed by Kirkus (another strong signal of notability, though not literary quality), there are a few dozen newspaper reviews showing up in Newsbank, including one in USA Today (albeit rather brief). GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals, which may not be enough on their own to establish notability, but certainly suggest it. As Tokyogirl quite accurately argues above, there's no case for removal of the content of the article; this is a discussion over the form in which the content should be retained: This really isn't a discussion about deletion, and would be better closed summarily. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a reference to support "Publisher's Weekly is quite selective". From their own site: "The book review section, not added until the early 1940s, has grown in importance over the past 75 years, and it currently offers opinions on 9,000 new books each year." Their page for submissions gives no information on selection. [33]. Last I heard, about 30,000 non-self-published books come out each year; we don't know how many of those are submitted to PW; even if they all are, 1 in 3 is not "quite selective".
There's nothing selective about Publisher's Weekly. Less so with Kirkus. BlueSalix (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your overall figure is way, way off, by a factor of 10, making your "1 in 3" analysis nonsense. That total should be more like 300,000.[34][35][36] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never made a "1 in 3" analysis. That comment was left by LaMona, who did not sign her comment, just like you didn't sign yours, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Feel free to check-out WP:SIGNATURE if you need help. BlueSalix (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about forgetting the signature. ~30K/~10K = 1 in 3. From the page you cite: "Bowker reports that over one million (1,052,803) books were published in the U.S. in 2009, which is more than triple the number of books published four years earlier (2005) in the U.S. (April 14, 2010 Bowker Report). More than two thirds of these books are self-published books, reprints of public domain works, and other print-on-demand books, which is where most of the growth in recent years has taken place." And I specified "non-self-published books", although I didn't even consider that PW would include reprints, etc., but I'm sure they don't - so removing, say 70% (= more than 2/3), we're back to 30K, and 1 in 3. PW doesn't cover PD works, and self-published books are under a different program at PW. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. No. No. No. 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000. This is not subject to debate or consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I can't count. But we still don't know 1) how many titles PW receives for review 2) how many it selects of those. So I'm still questioning PW being "very selective". This is a statement that needs a RS. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 7 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, Go Phightins! 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Hullaballoo. Content can be modified if we decide the BLPN's Bill Fawcett claim has merrit - though a quick Google raises doubts. Artw (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Kirkus review is no more a sign of notability than a PW one. Both are trade journals. Both review a lot of authors. Both accept payment. Throwing a statement out there how one is another weak point in Wolfowitz's analysis, particularly, "there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability," which is neither here nor there with this discussion, and "GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals," yet another limp towards clearing the hurtle of notability. I'm afraid it falls short. And, for the record, my response to tokyogirls' "comment" refutes her "argument." Going back to BlueSalixs' original post, this author does not meet WP:AUTHOR.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any particular comment on the trade reviews (although I will note that there has still been no official consensus on whether or not they are considered invalid for notability purposes), but I do have to stress that I believe that CQY's work as a whole merits an article because she received a major award from the HWA for her work as a whole. Stoker Awards are pretty darn notable and less than .01% of the people involved in horror have received one- let alone received one for their life's work. Only 44 people have ever received a Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement since its inception in the 1980s. It's not a small achievement by any means. However this is somewhat of a moot point since the topic at hand is whether or not the specific pseudonym should merit an article, not about CQY's work as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 9 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 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rationale. - I've been following this AfD discussion for several weeks, while I contemplated the comments of others and the best course of action to pursue in this AfD. As I see it, we basically have three choices:
1. Keep a separate "Quinn Fawcett" article, more less as it is now;
2. Redirect the "Quinn Fawcett" page to either "Bill Fawcett" or "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro";
3. Delete "Quinn Fawcett" and add duplicate text to both "Bill Fawcett" and "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro" regarding the Quinn Fawcett partnership.
This is the common problem we face with any duo or partnership where the individual partners are also notable. None of the three options is ideal, given that "Quinn Fawcett" is of marginal notability at best, making a stand-alone article somewhat problematic. A redirect to one of the two parent articles, by necessity, makes a choice to redirect to one or the other of the two literary partners, and not redirecting to the other. Deleting the "Quinn Fawcett" article requires the insertion of duplicate content into both parent articles, giving due credit to both Fawcett and Yarbro for the works of the "Quinn Fawcett" partnership. Having thought about this, and recognizing that there is no perfect solution, I have decided to treat this article as a "spin-out" of content from two notable subjects, and to register a "KEEP" !vote in favor of the "Quinn Fawcett" article. At the end of the day, there is no harm in keeping it, and provides the most logical structure for the two parent articles, fully recognizing that other AfD participants may reasonably disagree with me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 13:47, 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) 10:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volatility Guard[edit]

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

Prod deleted by page author with no reason provided. Still isn't WP:NOTABLE and still is WP:ADVERTISING. Tigraan (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT. A feature to prevent issues in trading no longer used by nasdaq. At most, it is worth a sentence in NASDAQ, maybe. While notability is not temporary, I don't seen anything much about this historically other than it being announced and then it being removed. Trysha (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for me as well, of course.Tigraan (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another perspective: History books that will mention the various market crashes due to algorithmic trading. Invariably it will mention trading limits (vanilla price checks which Do Not Help to prevent price Volatility related crashes e.g. a price may stay within a 'tolerable' range while its volatility is about to cause a crash). By removing the concept of Volatility Guard from human memory (i.e. no one explains what it does and how it was used), it essentially removes one of the few, if not only, named protection/ products/ concepts against a specific type of trading limit that is Designed against exotic trading products (that bet on volatility, all the rage of these two decades). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer09 2014 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trigraan, Prod was deleted with reason, possibly unsatisfactory to you, put on the Talk: Volatility Guard Prior to deletion. Hope the above perspective is better and also, in the correct location for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer09 2014 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with ProD being removed - you do not need to provide reason to remove it. Nonetheless it would be better to provide that reason, otherwise the article just survives one more week before being killed by AfD for the exact same reasons that made me put the Prod tag.Tigraan (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Trysha, volatility guard as a concept, is not used in American markets. I'm not sure how America-centric Wikipedia is meant to be; Volatility Guard (concept) is still used in Nordic markets at the time of this message to you. http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/11/26/686613/0/en/IT-INET-REMINDER-Production-launch-of-safeguards-in-opening-and-closing-auctions-on-the-Nasdaq-Nordic-and-Nasdaq-Baltic-exchanges-106-14.html?print=1 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer09 2014 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trysha and Trigraan: This is a good article to have on wiki. Volatility Guards are a fact and they are STILL USED and APPLIED. Many people are still unaware of the mechanism. There is a lot of work around Volatility Guards now. On 01 December 2014, Nasdaq Nordic and Nasdaq Baltic introduce auction safeguards to be applied to those shares and ETFs/ Fund Units on below markets, including respective First North markets, which also have volatility guards during continuous trading.

If we have articles related to the concept of "Volatility" in Wikipedia, It is very natural to have an article explaining the concept of Volatility Guard.


General public should be made aware of this. Next time we will have a significant volatility spike in one of these markets, the volatility guards will be triggered leaving a lot of investors completely clueless.

Here is how it is currently used in the safeguards in the NASDAQ OMX Nordic:

http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/08/28/661951/0/en/IT-INET-Introduction-of-trading-safeguards-to-opening-and-closing-auctions-in-NASDAQ-OMX-Nordic-and-Baltic-exchanges-80-14.html?print=1 Quoting from http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/08/28/661951/0/en/IT-INET-Introduction-of-trading-safeguards-to-opening-and-closing-auctions-in-NASDAQ-OMX-Nordic-and-Baltic-exchanges-80-14.html?print=1

" The dynamic volatility guards* used in continuous trading are the basis for the percentages used as safeguards in the opening and closing auctions:

in the opening auction the safeguards are two (2) times the dynamic volatility guards and in the closing auction the safeguards are the same as dynamic volatility guards.

Dynamic volatility guards are set on order book level and disseminated as reference data via the Genium Consolidated Feed and Nordic Workstation. See the percentages normally used as trading safeguards in the opening and closing auction in the table below. NASDAQ OMX Nordic holds the right to apply deviating percentages on individual order book."

I will be very happy to add more technical explanations on how this works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.92.54 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"globenewswire.com" is Nasdaq-operated, from the looks of their homepage. Please consult WP:PS, which includes "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" - that's pretty much what is going on right now.
If you can provide a secondary source for natability, I would withdraw my support for deletion. The article would still have issues but those would call for a rewrite, not a deletion.Tigraan (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Volatility Guard is significant enough to get the attention of the World Federation of Exchanges. http://www.world-exchanges.org/news-views/nasdaq-omx-nordic-introduces-updated-volatility-guards-protect-investors-and-listed World Federation of Exchanges is a neutral, international entity that monitors 64 markets/ exchanges for their most significant and notable developments.

It has also been mentioned in multiple publications and news sources such as:http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/02/nasdaq-circuitbreaker-idUSN0218608620100602 with comments from NYSE spokesman, the chief executive of BATS Global Markets and other Finance firms. Other news website such as WSJ give updates on market participants reactions :http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703509404575300641791256802?mod=_newsreel_5 .

The Reuters source looks great. Could you edit the article to include it? It might still fail under WP:PRODUCT as Trysha mentioned, but at least that's something concrete to go about. Tigraan (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 13:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: The Reuters source has been included as you suggested. I agree that the reuters source looks great and gives a clearer idea about the context now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.37.93 (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A page which only serves as a promotion for the subject. Just because it's somewhat related to NASDAQ doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:34, 3 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastfoldish[edit]

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

Joke article about a nonexistent language, created by an editor with a history of joke edits like adding Morroco to Kven language. The editor is blocked on the Norwegian Wikipedia for creating joke articles. ISO 639-3 code doesn't exist, nor is there any eastfoldish on Glottolog. No mention of the language anywhere but on Wikipedia.Speedy was declined. Sjö (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the lack of information in the article and the absence of non-Wikipedia Google hits, I think this can be speedily deleted per WP:A1: No context. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really does seem like a hoax to me; can't find any hits either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -A suitable WP:A11 candidate. Made-up by creator, no sign of significance. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:54, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svinesundish[edit]

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

Joke article about a nonexistent language, created by an editor with a history of joke edits like adding Morroco to Kven language. The editor is blocked on the Norwegian Wikipedia for creating joke articles. ISO 639-3 code doesn't exist, nor is there any Svinesundish on Glottolog. No mention of the language anywhere but on Wikipedia. Speedy was unfortunately declined. Sjö (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the lack of information in the article and the absence of non-Wikipedia Google hits, I think this can be speedily deleted per WP:A1: No context. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really does seem like a hoax to me; can't find any hits either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -A suitable WP:A11 candidate. Made-up by creator, no sign of significance. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:51, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UKline[edit]

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

The line has been used as a unit of length. WP has a seemingly decent little article about it: "Line (unit)". (I'm not entirely sure that it's good, as it depends partially on François Cardarelli's under-proofread book Scientific Unit Conversion, on which more below.)

I am surprised to hear of an old unit of measure with the name "UKline". Simply, "youkay this" or "youkay that" sounds to me very late C20, although I can't immediately produce evidence for this. The (mis)information about it is attributed to "Cardarelli, François Cradarelli [sic] (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures".

I don't have this book but I do have François Cardarelli, Scientific Unit Conversion -- an ambitious book, sadly ridden with errors, on which I imagine the later Encyclopaedia was based. Table 3-4 on p. 22 is about "UK linear measures". This says that the "UK line (line)" is one twelfth of an inch. Table 3-16 on p. 32 is about "US linear measures". This says that "line (US line)" is one fortieth of an inch.

I suggest that these are unfortunate ways to write, respectively, "line (UK)" and "line (US)". Anyway, the assertion that these are respectively one twelfth and one fortieth of an inch is backed up on p. 315 a book I do trust: 小泉袈裟勝 (Koizumi Kesakatsu), 『単位の辞典』 (Tan'i no jiten) 4th ed, Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981 (no ISBN).

The book has an alphabetically ordered list of units. This has no entry for "UKline" or "UK line". Instead, it has two entries for "line": one for the British version and the other for the US version. (According to Cardarelli, the US version was used in botany.)

Three possibilities come to mind:

  1. There really was a term "UKline".
  2. Cardarelli's later book adds new errors.
  3. The author of this article misread/misunderstood.

I suggest that these are in increasing order of plausibility.

The sole author of this non-article is User:Shevonsilva, who I understand from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit) has created a lot of stubs in the hope that somebody more knowledgable/energetic will later convert them into worthwhile articles. This example suggests to me that they're likely to be misbegotten and that all of them should be summarily deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We already have this content well-covered at line (unit) and this version of the title does not seem useful as a redirect because of the missing space. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not well enough covered to explain the claim that US=1/40, unless the Americans are all in the button trade. Surely, updating the line (unit) article would be more productive than these frenetic attempts to keep (almost) all of the stublets from this dreadful error-filled book? And as Hoary suggests, of course it is not the "UK line", it's the English one, with a very good chance there's a different factor for the Scottish one. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It occurs to me that, phonetically, "button" and "botany" have a remarkable resemblance. I wonder if Cardarelli or his translator (M J Shields) or Springer made some sort of goof here too. ¶ I had a quick look for mention of forty lines equalling one inch, and the most interesting thing I found was this, in which pre-decimal French pouces and lignes are englished as "inches" and "Paris lines". Reliably or otherwise, Cardarelli does also talk about French, Prussian and other "lines". -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see obsolete Scottish units of measurement which explains the history of the replacement of local Scottish measures by the English standards which was completed in 1824. So far as I can tell, the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures is entirely accurate and respectable and your condemnation of it seems quite improper. In this case, it shows the unit as line (UK). The compression to UKline seems to be the doing of Shevonsilva who was perhaps too careless but should be forgiven such a typing error per WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An owner of the book (Hoary, above) says it is "riddled with errors". That's not enough for me to criticise it? You saw the table of Chinese units? You seriously think we should update the natural numbers so 13 = 12 * 13 / 23? I agree that I may (just) have attributed to Cardarelli errors that were Shevonsilva's. But plainly there are unreliable claims in the book, and if there is simply no trace of the putative terms (see PamD's comments on 'flock' etc), we should not leave them here, because one of the problems WP is actually causing is that bits of junk in it (yes, this is inevitable sometimes) get recycled into massive webidence for the false claim. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary actually says that he doesn't. own the book. Your comments seem improper because they are hasty and over-broad condemnations of a serious work from a reputable publisher, based upon intemperate comments by a random assortment of Wikipedia editors. Andrew D. (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you are right, Hoary only owns the previous version of the book. Hmm. The fact that it is published by Springer, a company with a glorious past, means nothing (now, anyway) in terms of the content. Try a google search for "springer publishes rubbish"; read about computer generated junk being published. Try "Advanced in Computer Science and its Applications"[37]. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True: not only do I not own the book, I have no access to a copy. I do have a copy of the first edition. My comments on it so far have been undiplomatic but, I think, temperate. A huge amount of work went into this very ambitious book. I am sure that the great majority of the book is sound. But soon after buying my copy (back when it had just been published), I noticed a lot of oddities. I then bought a copy of a book of a comparable size and scope, Koizumi's Tan'i no jiten, which impressed me a lot more. (I don't want to rush to censure Cardarelli here. Koizumi's book surely benefitted from revisions made over two decades since first publication.) Thereafter I pretty much forgot about Cardarelli's book, until reminded by these AfDs. ¶ I am not a mathematician, but I was long under the impression that Springer was a preeminent publisher in this and related fields; the book therefore surprised as well as disappointed me. I've recently learned that -- in common with a number of other prestigious publishers, I suspect -- Springer publishes junk. (I suppose and greatly hope that junk only constitutes a minority, but junk some of it is.) Yes, do take a long look at "Department of redundant solecisms department", a page in "Language Log" about the Springer publication Advanced in Computer Science and its Applications. The author of this piece is Mark Liberman. This is not a hatchet job: you'll notice that, as "myl", Liberman goes out of his way to praise other, recent and superficially similar publications from Springer. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures is entirely accurate, that makes it very different from the same author's earlier Scientific Unit Conversion, which errs toward bogus precision and includes very odd material. Table 3-104, "Old Japanese units of weight" (p.87) includes such units as the "karus hiri-ichi-da" which isn't even phonologically possible in Japanese. (There's a bibliography for sources, but this includes no title purporting to give information about Japanese, Chinese, Persian etc units. There's no indication of where this stuff comes from.) Throughout the book, obsolete units of measurement are given very precise equivalents. These they may indeed have acquired toward the end of their lives, but the book doesn't mention varying understandings of the same term. ¶ I suppose that one could say that the book (the earlier one, at least) is charmingly potty. Although its conversion tables for units of length sadly omit an old favourite of a friend of mine, the attoparsec, it does provide conversions from parsecs into chains (engineers'), chains (surveyors'), etc, and vice versa. ¶ I'm most willing to forgive typos in text (I make them myself), a lot less so of typos in titles, etc. People who can't create articles that aren't at least slightly worthwhile (in their undeveloped way) or aren't pretty much free of factual mistakes shouldn't be creating articles: the problems in their articles/stubs use up others' time that could more productively be spent elsewhere. And yes, I try to "assume good faith", but see (i) User talk:Shevonsilva passim and (ii) WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (More alphabet soup: WP:CIR.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains that, in this case of the line (unit), the work in question is accurate. Your comments about the attoparsec and another work seem too tangential. Andrew D. (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I have a copy of this book, Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures (2003), and while I am certainly not an expert in this field, my view on the book is that it gives more of a historical timeline in explaining the various measurements used throughout history and in different cultures and/or countries. And the text is accompanied by a huge amount of conversion tables that are purported to be accurate by the author Cardarelli. However, it looks like to me from the massive amount of articles being created from this book, that Shevonsilva merely cherry-picked these terms and/or definitions for inclusion - in this case from chapter 3 in the book. My personal opinion is rather than creating a massive amount of stubs, it would make more sense if an article was created that encompassed all of the information from chapter 3, rather than cherry-picking, then there would be a better chance of finding secondary sources to support an article of this nature. Anyway, here's a rendition of the table (from the book) that is being used as a reference for the article nominated for deletion:
Rendition of conversion table from book
UK linear measures [1 foot=0.3048 m (E)]
UK stat.
league
(st. lg)		 UK stat.
mile
(st. mi)		 Pole
(rd)		 Yard
(yd)		 Pace
(pc)		 Cubit
(cu)		 Foot
(ft,')		 Span
(sp)		 Hand
(hd)		 Palm
(plm)		 Inch
(in,")		 UK line
(line)		 Point
(pt)
1 =3 =960 =5280 =6336 =10 560 =15 840 =21 120 =47 520 =63 360 =190 080 =2 280 960 =27 371 520
1 =320 =1760 =2112 =3520 =5280 =7040 =15 840 =21 120 =63 360 =76 0320 =9 123 840
1 =11/2 =33/5 =11 =16.5 =22 =49.5 =66 =198 =2376 =28 512
1 =6/5 =2 =3 =4 =9 =12 =36 =432 =5184
1 =5/3 =5/2 =10/3 =15/2 =10 =30 =360 =4320
1 =3/2 =2 =9/2 =6 =18 =216 =2592
1 =4/3 =3 =4 =12 =144 =1728
1 =9/4 =3 =9 =108 =1296
1 =4/3 =4 =48 =576
1 =3 =36 =432
1 =12 =144
1 =12

If you have any questions pertaining to the book, please feel free to ask. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer, User:Isaidnoway. (And for the table. I hope that you somehow automated the creation of what would have taken me a long time to produce.) For now at least, let's stick to lines. The older book says that the line, whether British or American, is obsolete; and it says that the American one "was used in botany for plant measurements". And that's all that it says. Does the newer book say any more? And I'm no metrologist, but I sense that Cardarelli gives an impression of systems where no systems existed. (I mean, were "line" and "cubit", for example, ever used in contexts even tenuously related to each other?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The newer book does not say anything at all about the American one being used for botany or plant measurements, nor does it say that the UK or US "line" is obsolete, but it does imply that. He does make a distinction though between UK linear measurements (based on the UK system of imperial units) and US linear measurements (based on the US system of customary units), which he says "where there are differences between them and imperial units, the designation (US) is normally applied. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Isaidnoway. First a niggle: "that are purported to be accurate by the author" is simply meaningless: of course any author or publisher purports that what they have said is true. But it would be interesting to see the table of Japanese units -- just length, say, since those are fairly familiar, and all you need to show is the list of names, because if we can't immediately match them to the facts we know where we are. You say that the book provides info about "different cultures and/or countries", but does this include at least one case where you know independently that the book is accurate? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your niggle. I believe this (from the book) to be accurate: The British system of units, known as imperial units, was established by the Weights and Measures Act (WMA, 1824) of June 17th, 1824. - Secondary source: Imperial units or the imperial system is a system of units, first defined in the British Weights and Measures Act of 1824. He goes on to discuss the various Weights and Measures acts through the years in the UK, and they are all accurate as well. Here is a rendition of the "Old Japanese units of length", which is the only Japanese one I see. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rendition of Old Japanese units of length
Old Japanese units of length [1 shaku=10/33m]
Ri Chô Jô Ken Hiro Yabiki Shaku Sun Bu Rin Mô Shi
1 =36 =1296 =2160 =2592 =5184 =12 960 =129 600 =1 296 000 =12 960 000 =120 960 000 =1 209 600 000
1 =36 =60 =72 =144 =360 =3600 =36 000 =360 000 =3 600 000 =36 000 000
1 =5/3 =2 =4 =10 =100 =1000 =10 000 =100 000 =1 000 000
1 =6/5 =12/5 =6 =60 =600 =6000 =60 000 =600 000
1 =2 =5 =50 =500 =5000 =50 000 =500 000
1 =5/2 =25 =250 =2500 =25 000 =250 000
1 =10 =100 =1000 =10 000 =100 000
1 =10 =100 =1000 =10 000
1 =10 =100 =1000
1 =10 =100
1 =10

Thanks. ありがとうございます！　I do hope that as Hoary said you have some automated way of creating these. Anyway, compare with Japanese_units_of_measurement#Length which thinks hiro and ken are both 6 shaku -- actually a big old reliable dictionary (Kōjien) says hiro can be either 5 or 6. So, ok so far. But what is 'yabiki'? I don't know, and it seems curious that this unit has not found its way into Kōjien (the OED of Japanese) nor Daijirin, a more up to date successor. It sounds like "Arrow-draw", and I found myself on an archery site, where they discussed the term 引き尺 (hikishaku) which sounds like it might mean the same thing. But really, what are the chances that this Cardarelli character is doing other than assemble scraps of half-baked semi-info and lumping them together. Not impressive. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Koizumi's dictionary of units (mentioned above) says (pp.248-249) that a hiro (尋) could be either five or six shaku (尺) (though it implies that it was more commonly six). It says (p.106) that a ken (間) was six shaku. (Although it adds that there was a fiction that it was three or five sun [寸] longer than this.) By jô, Cardanelli means 丈, which we in en:WP romanize as jō; yes this was ten shaku. Koizumi doesn't mention yabiki. Going in the other direction, by mô, Cardanelli means 毛, which we in en:WP romanize as mō; yes this was one thousandth of a sun (p.306). Now, the mō is pretty damn short: with a standard shaku, it's 1/33 of one millimetre. I'd be astounded to learn that pre-decimal Japan had any need for a unit one tenth this size. The shi of Cardanelli's would have been about three micrometres. Amazingly, Koizumi does list a shi (絲) corresponding to this; but he describes it (p.136) as Chinese and one tenth of a rin (厘) rather than a mō. (Shi and rin will be Sino-Japanese: Japanese pronunciations of Chinese words.) It's sunny outside, so I don't propose to go through all the other items in this table (which is, after all, only tangential to the "UKline"); however, I think I may call it a promising first draft for a table of Japanese units but not something that should be taken seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digression: strictly speaking this digression about Cardarelli is not germane to this page, because as Andrew D pointed out, in this particular case ('line') he actually got it right. I would like to collect together comments on the Cardarelli book, so would everyone be happy if I copy this to a page in my user space? There might even be cause for a WP article on the series of books, but for now I would like to have something to refer to in making other edits. For example, it looks to me as though Obsolete Russian units of measurement might have imported some Cardarelli "bogus precision". (How can I find changes within the page history? Have never worked that out...) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginatorium, you look in the history (hint: it's linked as "history"), and wildly guess when the change was made. Once you've found a pre-change version, you click on a version that's more or less halfway between it and a known post-change version. You then click halfway again, etc etc. (It's here.) With most articles, eg Obsolete Russian units of measurement, this is pretty easy; with something like Barack Obama, it's very tedious. Everybody here published their comment under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL; so unless you remove attribution from a comment or falsify it (or possibly ridicule it) there should be no problem in recycling these comments elsewhere in WP. I'd have thought that an investigation, for WP-editing purposes, of something already used here as a reference work would be a good use of "userspace", but perhaps there are recommended and disfavored ways of doing this; you might ask here in "WP:RSN". -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best per WP:TNT even if notable, but not notable and the Cardarelli book is pretty unreliable and has a reputation for listing non-notable units of measure. Would also be open to creating a redirect per consensus. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence such a unit has ever been used. Do not redirect to Line (unit) because the chances that someone would look for UKline (and not ukline or uk line) is minuscule. Wikipedia already as Line which gives the reader perfect information, including a link to the unit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 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 speedily deleted by User:Deb per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livevana[edit]

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

Its a non - notable company. Could not find any references. Couldn't even find the official site on Google. Article has been tagged as unreferenced from Sep 2010 but still no references present. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article on a company, making no notability claim (so possibly a CSD A7). Highbeam turns up only the briefest possible mention in a review of Indian location-based service firms ([38], subscription reqd.) and a Google search little more than a blog posting. AllyD (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -I think, it is a perfect speedy material (WP:A7 and WP:G11) and have tagged the article such. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pritee Kathpal[edit]

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

There is just barely enough information in the article to make a case that this shouldn't be csd A7 eligible, however the article lacks any real citations for the information - in point of fact something half the cited links and external links are to facebook and youtube and so forth in that manner, hence the reason for the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard[edit]

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

Delete No claim to notability is made. The only claim made is that he is devoted to teaching the principles of A Course in Miracles, but that in itself doesn't qualify as notability, because ACIM has sold around two million copies and many people have written books on it and are dedicated to teaching its principals. Does every ACIM teacher/author deserve a wiki? In my opinion, the only two ACIM figures who truly deserve Wikis are Helen Schucman (the author of "A Course in Miracles"), and Marianne Williamson who authored a book about ACIM (A Return to Love) which was an "Oprah pick" and has sold over 2 million copies! Renard can make no such claim to notability. Lucinda14 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that simply fixing grammatical and spelling errors when I find them is easier than nominating articles for deletion in order to "purify" Wikipedia. Notability is the criterion for inclusion, not opinions. The guy has sold a lot of books and according to the foremost scholar on the subject, D. Patrick Miller, Renard has had a major impact on the study of ACIM amongst those who study it. Scott P. (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote; your nomination is considered your delete !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lucinda14 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's "bad faith" for you to interpret the motives of an editor. I nominated this article because of what I wrote above: he has no claim to notability. This article was created back when his book "Disappearance of the Universe" (whose article was recently deleted) had just been published, and the only significance that book had was that it went to #2 on Amazon's sales list, a fact which isn't even mentioned in this article! Mind you, it didn't go to the top of New York Times (as A Return to Love had), but merely to #2 on Amazon.com -- purely as a result of a bundling marketing ploy by Hayhouse wherein people who bought the book through Amazon were given two free books in the Hayhouse catalogue. Marketing schemes don't make authors or books notable, particularly when the sales aren't even that great. This book has not sold millions of copies, as Williamson's book has. If you can find info that this man is notable, please insert it and I will eat my words. But this is a GOOD FAITH nomination on my part. (Please also note that a "notability?" tag has sat atop this page for months now. I'm not the only person to make this observation. Just because you disagree doesn't make my nomination "bad faith.") Lucinda14 (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is bad faith if you create an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of getting this article deleted. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why I created an account. And I'm not the only person to say this isn't a notable figure. Lucinda14 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit history doesn't lie. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's pretty obvious you have a conflict of interest here which is why you keep distracting from the point: he's not notable. I assume you are a "student" of his or perhaps a business partner? Lucinda14 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only other ACIM teacher with a Wiki is Marianne Williamson, but her notability extends beyond ACIM and even into politics. Renard is not at her level. She has appeared on Oprah, Larry King, Good Morning America, and featured in Time and Newsweek. Has Renard? I Googled him, and I see that he appears in venues like "forgiveness.tv", and while it is true he has a twitter and facebook and youtube account … so does everyone. He's just not notable. Lucinda14 (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per Amazon and Google searches, Renard has been quoted and/or mentioned extensively in at least 80 other books (possibly many more, but I made a point to exclude endorsements/forewords so didn't look inside those), including one of Wayne Dyer's books. He has been featured in seven documentary films. His books have been translated into 22 languages. Has also been a regular featured speaker at the annual A Course In Miracles international conference since 2008 or so. Notability is well met, even though the article doesn't necessarily reflect that. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability has not been well established for him. That's the point of this deletion discussion. What you mention is typical of people who work in the self-help and New Age genre. They all quote each other. They self-publish their own low-budget documentaries all the time. That doesn't make them notable. That means they are one among many in an industry that does that. Being mentioned by Wayne Dyer doesn't make him notable. Being a speaker at "A Course in Miracles" symposia does not make him notable. These descriptions fit many people. Find me a reference to him in People magazine, Time magazine, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. I can find you such references for Marianne Williamson. You can't find them for Renard because they don't exist. He never broke out of the small-time, insular world of people who read "A Course in Miracles" (a small segment of people on the fringes of New Thought and Unity Church). The only other biography pages of ACIM figures are for Williamson, Helen Schucman, and William Thetford; Renard is not in their league. Do you have a conflict of interest here? Lucinda14 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does this article in its present state [39] NOT establish his notability, it contains an outright grammatical error in the very lede: "stated purpose is to reawaken interest in and clarify the core principals of the 1976 spiritual text, A Course In Miracles (ACIM)." So, his aim is to establish who is in charge, who is the "principal" of, the ACIM movement, just as I knew who the principal of my elementary school was? It's just a badly written, unnecessary article on a non-notable topic. Lucinda14 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable figure/author in the ACIM spiritual movement. Books are mentioned in other books (see Google Books). Books have large holdings in WorldCat. Large holdings in LibraryThing. Ranked #14 best seller in Amazon's Controversial Religious Knowledge list. "Destined to be one of the most significant contributions to spiritual literature in this century." Wayne Dyer. There may be other ACIM persons who don't (yet) have a Wikipedia article, but that isn't reason to delete this one. If there is trouble with the content or wording, concerns about promotion, Wikipedia anyone can edit it's a double-edged sword. -- GreenC 15:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see the other books listed on "controversial knowledge" at Amazon.com: [40]. Not a notable category in itself. (Please also note that the book that ranks at #11 on the controversial knowledge list, ranks at number 21,265 overall on Amazon.com. [41]. And his most recent book, published in 2014, is at 91,000 on Amazon's best seller list. [42].) As for being an important ACIM teacher, Robert Thompson Perry is a far more significant figure in the movement, and is much more established [43], and yet his page has been redirected to the main ACIM page. Maybe that's what should happen with this page. And if you know anything about Wayne Dyer, you know he says that about just about everyone who asks for a comment. Since when do author's own promotional blurbs establish notability? Isn't that called "primary source"? You got that Dyer quote straight off of Renard's own Amazon.com page for "Disappearance of the Universe." Lucinda14 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lucinda, it's pretty obvious that your user id was created by someone who has edited Wikipedia significantly before under different user-id('s), and that the user-id that you are currently using was created specifically with the intention, so far, of deleting the Gary Renard article. Every one of the 40 or so edits made under your current user-id was made with that and only that intention. Yes, I do want to keep the article, as has been already decided by the previous aFd. Call that an agenda, but as I understand it, attempting to delete an article using multiple user-id's is usually called sock-puppetry. Please stick to one user-id. Scott P. (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course you want to keep this article. You're the one who started this article [44], and you are a student of Renard's and ACIM [45], which means you have a conflict of interest here. Back to the point here: Renard is not notable. Lucinda14 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the google news hits [46] about this author seem to be entirely press releases which do not establish notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 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. Possible cleanup can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon O. Johnson[edit]

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

Non-notable veteran. There's an assertion of importance with his world trips, but it falls short in verifiability. That's my main concern, that Johnson falls short of WP:BIO with the events of his life.

My secondary concern is that the article was created by JohnsonFamilyTheTrip, an account which appears to be promoting the book written about Johnson by an apparent family member. That takes it beyond just a non-notable biography into the realm of promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments left on 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC). I have rethought my position, but since other editors favor deletion, I can't withdraw the nomination outright. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is interesting, and from reading the article, I'm sure the book will also be an interesting read, but I don't see how having an interesting story to tell makes a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I also have some concerns about the promotional aspect here, so I agree with the observations that C.Fred has made above. Cmr08 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please reconsider inclusion, as issues have been addressed.

  • Do not delete per nom. Over 40 citations have been added to the article per request, as well as photographs — Preceding unsigned comment added by JendaAJ (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as the nominator, I still feel the article should be deleted. I've looked over the additions, and I do not feel that they show Johnson to be a notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for consideration of sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article is deleted, we probably need to go through the deletion process for the article on his spouse, Anne Beckwith Johnson, as well. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’Keep' per nom JendaAJ (talk) I believe that this article meets qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia. The inclusion of Mr. Johnson’s war experiences were not to say he was a notable military veteran, but it shows the evolution of what drives a man to undertake challenges in the face of global politics and culture of fear. Anyone who lived through the period of the Cold War would recognize that his opening of the Trans Siberian Railway to non-Soviet travel accomplished a near-unsurrmountable feat (aside from camping around the world for almost two years with 8 children). The argument about not being verifiable has been corrected by including citations to some of the 100 newspaper articles followed his life. His accomplishments were, indeed more significant than many of the sports stars and DJs that have been included in Wikipedia. I think that a thorough understanding of US-USSR relations in the 1950’s would make this clear. The book that resulted from this trip is also notable. Thank you.JendaAJ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to be clear, as nominator, I still do not feel the article meets the inclusion criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please adress in particular the souces added after during the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blow it up and start over - Johnson appears to have received significant coverage for more than one event (bus tour and political career), thus passes WP:GNG and WP:SINGLEEVENT. However, the current version of the article is so poorly referenced and non-neutral that I believe the best course of action would be for the article to be deleted and recreated, preferably by a user not connected to the subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to draft namespace / Userfy - There are issues of WP:COI, WP:TONE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V, but overall the subject appears notable and the problems don't appear problematic enough to merit WP:BLOWITUP. The same cannot be said for Anne Beckwith Johnson and Home is Where the Bus Is. @JendaAJ: - A suggestion: because it does not appear the latter two meet Wikipedia notability criteria (WP:BIO and WP:NBOOKS), consider merging the most important parts of them into this article -- or all three into a topic with a different scope. If most of the sources are about Vernon, the article title should probably remain, but if most of the sources are about the family bus trip, it's possible an article about that trip or about the family may be more appropriate (I don't know). Regardless, what really needs to happen is for you (or someone else, most likely) to take a critical eye to the text, trimming the fat and rewording to be neutral, limited to what is important and what is backed up by the sources. Things that jump out as particularly undue are things like Anne's involvement with the PTA and Vernon's time at Cadet School. Remove anything that's too glowingly positive (e.g. see WP:PEACOCK) -- these articles should be memorials but matter-of-fact encyclopedia articles. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just one gander at THIS above the fold banner from the San Francisco Chronicle is more than sufficient to convince me that this is a GNG pass as the subject of significant, independently published coverage. Problems of tone are a normal editorial matter. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite's comment above. I think you're right, that probably there should be one article about the Johnson family and the trip. I suppose it makes the most sense for the article to be at this title. The book about the trip, etc., can be mentioned in this article, but I don't think they need stand-alone articles. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 4 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. Ignoring the SPAs that popped up during this debate, it appears that this does not meet NBOX. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Martin (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer because he fails WP:NBOX. Junior championships don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was hoping more could be added here to show notability. It was credibly written by what looks to be a first time editor but the subject is clearly a decent size fish in a small pond - does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Martin may be a rising star, but it seems like a case of TOOSOON. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the following notes before deletion:
Per the notability requirements one would have: fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament.
The under-19 is a mens NATIONAL tournament and is sanctioned by USA Boxing. USA Boxing, Is the national governing body for Olympic-style boxing, is the United States' member organization of the International Amateur Boxing Association (AIBA) and a member of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). It is responsible for the selection and management of the United States Olympic Boxing Team and AIBA. [1]
Martin won the GOLD MEDAL at such National Championship. He also was selected for his AIBA Affiliated country (USA) in a continental/World tournament--AIBA Youth World Championships comprised of a 105 countries. [2]
As a professional boxing manager with over 40 years of experience I would be open to create a page specifically for the U-19 National Championships and Youth World Games. These tournaments are specifically for the country's elite athletes and are the gateway to the sports World Champions, Olympic Medalist and some of the best prizefighters in the world.
Ryan Martin shows notability in all areas of the sport, He's won a total of 12 National Championships and has competed all over the world for team USA. Also, he's ranked 17 in his weight division as a professional [3] and has just recently signed professional w/ 50 Cent in September of 2013.
He's not ranked by any major organization or media outlet. Boxrec ranks him 17th among U.S. lightweights--hardly a clear indicator of notability. If anything, it shows he is not among the top lightweights who are adults. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make a rational decision and have discussions before this page isn't considered notable and selected for deletion. C.dunkin (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junior championships have never been considered to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is good reason for this. Junior championships whether boxing or karate or ..... never have the same rigor in selection/participation as adult. Subject is now competing as an adult (with a no Loss record). If he is any good he should meet WP:NBOX soon and it can be recreated - if not well almost competing in the olympics does not really inspire.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Martin meets #4 Notability Requirement #4 One would have: "fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament". Martin was selected to represent Team USA at the [Youth World Championships] by winning a gold medal at a USA Boxing National Championships (2010)
Here's the list provided by AIBA as a sanctioned World Amateur Boxing Championship Tournament:[4]
  • Olympic Games
  • Youth Olympic Games
  • World Boxing Championships
  • Womens World Boxing Championships
  • AIBA Youth World Boxing Championships
  • AIBA Junior World Boxing Championhips
  • Commonwealth Games
C.dunkin (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @C.dunkin, "in the final of". The USA didnt even get to the tournament, whether he was selected or not, because of the Icelandic volcanic thingy, so unfortunately he doesnt meet criteria yet. He may, if he continues his progress, but unfortunately not at the moment. Murry1975 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He competed in the finals, he won the gold medal, at the National Championship for his affiliated AIBA (USA), PER WP:NBOX " One would have: "fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship..." Seems like the big dispute is that U-19 is a junior tournament, however thats not the case. Per USA Boxing's rulebook 15-16 year olds are "Junior boxers. the U-19 is for the top 17-18 year old men. Once they reach 19 years old, then they move into Senior division. Boxer also meets general notability. Take some time and go through all the sources I provided. Feel free to add some more, I'm still gathering more as we speak. C.dunkin (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the USA national tournament is sanctioned and reconfinzed by AIBA as a World Qualifying Tournament. Mr. Martin won GOLD here. He didn't only make it to the final of that event. He was crowned champion. Also, he was the selected lightweight to represent his country at the World Championships. :C.dunkin (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI--Someone struck your second keep vote because, while you can comment all you want, you can only vote once. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was never an international champion. He was a national champion as a junior, not as an adult. There's a big difference. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was an international competitor for his AIBA country (USA). Indeed he was a national champion as a junior. He was also an open division mens champion at the U-19 which is a national tournament (ages 17-19). C.dunkin (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX since, to my knowledge, junior events have never been considered sufficient for notability in any sport. That's never been considered as competing at the highest level of any sport. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Junior or not junior They are sanctioned AIBA and USA boxing events. if your 15, 16, 17 ,18 or etc., those champions are the best in their country/world for winning such. and They are competing at the highest level their age allows them to. AGE doesn't determine notability. C.dunkin (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An 8 year old karate yellow belt competes at the highest level he's allowed to, but he's not notable either. Being the best 85 year old boxer or swimmer or whatever also doesn't make someone automatically notable. The criteria is about competing at the highest level--that means no restrictions on who can compete. WP is full of deleted articles on junior athletes in a variety of sports because they weren't considered notable. Even junior Olympic champions have been deleted and he has never reached that level. Papaursa (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per #4 Notability Requirement. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering how many times this has been discussed at the various talk sports projects (including NSPORTS), none of which have determined that junior events count for notability, I am surprised at how many people want to create their own guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - young but seems to meet #4 Notability Requirement as stated above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --boxer meets WP: NBOX. U-19 Natl. Gold Medalist. Not a junior tournament. It's designed for the best 18-19 year olds in their affiliated country to prepare them for Olympic Scoring. Also, we are becoming too wrapped in this. Let's refer to WP: COMMON. Kid seems highly touted and is still continuing career with success, receiving significant coverage in his sport. (Inside ring and outside). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattlonguk (talk • contribs) 19 December 2014 15:54

-Mattlonguk (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - might be an 'up and coming' new professional boxer, but fails to meet any of the guidelines for notability. WP:GNG failed because there are insufficient examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Despite what other voters have said, #4 of boxing guidelines is not met. Junior competitions do not carry anything like the notability of seniors, and in this case you definitely can't count a competition where the team did not even get a chance to turn up to the competition. --nonsense ferret 19:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why so many people want to ignore the numerous precedents that junior athletes are not automatically notable. He doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. I don't see how people decide that an "under 19" tournament is not for juniors, when it is clearly not an adult tournament or at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per USA Boxing Competiton Rule Handbook "2.1 Classification of Boxers, 2.1.4 between the ages of 15 to 16 are categorized as Junior Boxers, 2.1.1 between the ages of 17-18 are categorized as Youth Boxers. 2.1.3 between the ages of 19-40 are considered Seniors [5] Ryan Meets WP:NBOX the U-19 is created for the top 17-18 year olds after they move out of the junior division. Under 19 is an open division tournament. (17-18 yrs old) USA Boxings junior tournaments are (Ages 15-16). I would agree that Jr. tournaments shouldn't make people Automatically notable. However, in Ryan's case how much more elite could the kid get? At 18 years old (2010) he was the number 1 lightweight in his weight class for boxers aged 17-18 (you can't even compete in senior tournaments if your not 19) then he's one of the few men to make it to the Olympic Qualifier in 2011 to box off for the Olympic spot, loosing to the Olympic Alternate Robert Easter. Hence, being recruited by the top promotional companies and signing a multi year deal with notable 50 Cent. dubbed a Blue-Chip prospect by many publications and being featured on MTV.Com, and Ring Magazine (the bible of boxing). in addition to the plethora of stories on various boxing platforms, fighting on the ESPN network and the undercards of HBO and Showtime. Ryan should meet WP:GNG Also WP:NBOX should be revised if most editors aren't happy or confused why others believe Ryan Martin meets that criteria.C.dunkin (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trying out for an Olympic team does not make someone notable, nor does being ranked as the top 18 year old. Junior events have never been accepted as equivalent to adult events and he has not yet done anything that allows him to meet anything listed at WP:NBOX. Astudent0 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using Common Sense Is Better Than Having Rules For Everything. This young professional athlete will prevail past all the negativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseslab (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Caseslab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Using rules generated by consensus is superior to people creating their own rules based on WP:ILIKEIT--especially when te new criteria are being generated by new SPAs.Jakejr (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" - meets General notability requirement and notability #4 boxer has received significant coverage in his sport and coverage is still ongoing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla Ja (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Carla Ja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bush, Ron (2013-09-07). "Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin to begin pro boxing". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      After more than 200 amateur fights and 12 national championships under various labels, Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin has gone pro. And he's hooked up with someone whose very name means coin.

      Martin, most recently a Golden Gloves 132- and 141-pound open participant, is set to make his professional debut in the 135-pound lightweight class on Sept. 16 at the Resorts World Casino in New York City. He has a promotional deal with SMS Promotions, owned by rapper 50 Cent.

    2. Wiedmer, Mark (2014-04-18). "Wiedmer: Martin on verge of boxing stardom". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      Ryan Martin was pushing a lawnmower around a Hixson front yard last September, trying to put an extra $20 in his pocket, when his cell phone rang.

      "It was [the rapper] 50 Cent and Tim [VanNewhouse]," he said. "They wanted me to box for them full time. I couldn't believe it."

      Assuming "Blue Chip" Martin improves to 5-0 following tonight's lightweight bout against Misael Chacon in Monroeville, Pa., the whole country could believe in him come July 2. That's when ESPN would televise a bout including Martin on its "Wednesday Night Fight" show.

    3. Shahen, Paul (2014-05-16). "Chattanooga's Ryan Martin featured in 50 Cent's new music video". WRCB. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      Pro boxer Ryan Martin goes from the ring to the big screen in 50 Cent's newest music video. The song is conveniently named "Winners Circle" and it makes sense because since Martin turned pro he's spent a lot of time in the winners circle.

      Martin signed with 50 Cent's boxing label SMS Promotions last year. The former West Side Boxer in Chattanooga is off to a 5-0 pro start with three knockouts.

    4. Bush, Ron (2014-11-08). "Central grad Martin goes for 9-0 as pro boxer". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      From his residence in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, Ryan Martin said it was "awesome" that Central High School was in the state football playoffs and had a winning record this year.

      The Purple Pounders' record is not nearly as impressive as the 21-year-old Central graduate's.

      He's 8-0 as a professional lightweight boxer in less than 14 months of action. He tries this evening to go to 9-0 -- 7-0 in 2014. But Martin, a protege of rapper 50 Cent through SMS Promotions, is fighting his toughest opponent to date in his most prestigious setting.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ryan Martin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should find more articles and sources to include in discussionBoxexpo2015 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate in a nutshell has clearly been whether or not the boxers Gold Medal performance at the U-19 National Championship( 2010) was in the Junior division. Which per USA Boxing rule book Junior Championships are for ages 15-16. The U-19 is for elite men ages 17-18 Years old. Hence, meeting WP:NBOX Boxer has received multiple features/stories and mentions in a plethora of reliable independent sources in his sport. Boxer has won significant awards. Including, but not limited to 12 National Championships. Also, After reviewing sources provided on the boxers page it should be clear that boxer meets WP:GNG

NOTES: WP:NBOX should be revised if it's believed Ryan doesn't meet this criteria. Just to be clear it reads "fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an AIBA affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament". Ryan hasn't only won an National Championship for his AIBA, his done it 12x including a Silver Medal at the 2009 Junior Olympics and a Gold Medal at the mens 2010 U-19 Natl. Championships. including being selected to represent Team USA in International competition/tournaments. Success still hasn't stopped, and his media coverage has been constant and still continuing...C.dunkin (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects you are referring to are martial artist, with only one or two sources of which weren't even reliable, with hardly no professional success.C.dunkin (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boxing is a martial art and their Youth Olympic medals were documented. Martin's professional career does not meet WP:NBOX so claiming that's what makes him notable is wrong.Jakejr (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin won a medal at the National Jr. Olympics too. I'm not claiming he's notable for that reason. He's continued to win significant awards since that time in his life and has consistantely received coverage in his sport, Hence, being recruited by the sports biggest promoters to sign professional.C.dunkin (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fighters I mentioned won Youth Olympic titles, not national Youth Olympic events. That's a big difference, yet that was still determined to be insufficient to show notability.Jakejr (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep boxer meets WP:GNG @ jakejr I've made few edits to boxing as I don't follow it that closely, but I'm very familiar with music and 50 Cent. It so happens that 50 Cent is his promoter and there is sufficient sources detailing Ryan's achievements/story. I'm confident that he meets WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseslab (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a new user you should become familiar with a few Wikipedia rules. Please sign your posts by putting 4 tildes after each one. You are also only allowed to vote once per discussion which is why I crossed out your last vote. You can comment as many times as you want, but only vote once. Finally, WP:NOTINHERITED says that notability is not inherited by being connected to famous people, so Martin can't gain notability from his manager or promoter.Jakejr (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Evidence shows that the boxer has gained sufficient independent coverage and recognition. Please see examples of evidence from reliable sources included on the boxers page and some examples below:
[6]

The article notes:

From a young age Ryan Martin was highly touted. The Ohio resident was dubbed 'Kid London' by Jermain Taylor who saw Martin's skills first hand at the Silver Gloves. When Martin failed to make the USA team for the 2012 Olympics he decided to make the switch to the professional game.

[7]

The article notes:

Like many young fighters entering the sport, Martin chose to align himself with a promoter he felt could help guide his career. His manager VanNewhouse took him to meetings with various promoters but they ultimately went with 50 Cent as they felt he could afford them exposure and opportunities no one else could provide.

[8]

The article notes:

The young Lightweight from Chattanooga, TN is a promising star and is also being treated as such. He already has a strong team behind him as manager Tim VanNewhouse made it a point from the beginning to have Martin’s full focus on boxing and nothing else.

he is getting exposure and great opportunities. Martin is fresh off his fourth career victory just a couple weeks back and already he’s set to be part of Mike Tyson’s promotional debut on Showtime this Friday night.

Martin is already signed to his own promoter SMS Promotions which is headed by rap star and businessman 50 Cent but being part of Iron Mike Promotions inaugural event is something special for him.

There is sufficient coverage for boxer to meet WP:GNG if we can't determine he meets WP:NBOX. C.dunkin (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding more sources, not sure how you incorporate them into the page, as it seems well written. Use Chattanooga in your search efforts, there's a bit there. Boxexpo2015 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in nominating this page should spend more time examining the sources-- this would easily show that they are sufficient.
  • I would say he lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. These articles mentioned tend to be fight results or press releases for upcoming bouts (or be on websites of dubious reliability). As far as notability goes, I believe it's worth noting that Martin and Semajay Thomas were born in the same year, but Thomas won the national amateur championship while Martin won an age group title. It wasn't Martin's age that prevented him from fighting for the true U.S. amateur title and thus competing at the highest level.Jakejr (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious Reliability? Theres not one source on there of such! And only one of the articles could be considered a press release, which was put out by Frigo Revolution-wear announcing their two year branding deal with Ryan Martin. Dubious sources/websites? that is extremely incorrect.C.dunkin (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know Twitter and PRNNEWS are not reliable sources and I don't know about the reliability of some of the boxing websites.Jakejr (talk)
Twitter is only used to identify a tweet by a notable boxing analyst. The PRNNEWS source was just identifying him in the release. Normally this is how most deals are announced via national news wire. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE & WP:N please consider being an expert of Boxing and it's reliable sources before nominating Ryan's page for deletion. This page should remain active as it's meets notability WP:N, WP:V and has reliable sources WP:RS. also please note that boxingscene is the largest and one of the most trusted sites for boxing news. C.dunkin (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think he meets the notability standards listed for boxers because junior achievements are not usually considered notable and he hasn't yet met any of the standards as an adult. I also don't think he quite meets the coverage requirements of WP:GNG. I'm a new editor, but long time user, so I thought I'd try to test my knowledge at some deletion debates.75.150.214.113 (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)— User:75.150.214.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Young fighters who fight on HBO, ESPN, Showtime Undercard/Events and are recruited by the sports leading promoters and managers certainly should meet WP:GNG if referring to boxing. This athletes story and achievements have been documented since he was 8 years old. Theres close to 20 reliable sources on the page. Please help improve it if you think it needs any more. I'm sure you will find others. C.dunkin (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in boxing sport. Athlete meets WP:GNGBoxexpo2015 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Boxexpo2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://aiba.org/en-US/news/ozqsp/newsId/3167/headlines.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.boxingscene.com/2010-under-19-national-champions-crowned-cinci--25326
  3. ^ http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=US&sex=m&division=Lightweight&status=A&SUBMIT=Go. Retrieved 15 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ aiba.org http://www.aiba.org/default.aspx?pId=4683#. Retrieved 15 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ usaboxing.org http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Boxing/Rulebook/Competition-Rules. Retrieved 22 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ "Ryan Martin Pumped". boxingscene.com. Waignwright, Anson. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
  7. ^ "Martin working great with SMS". boxingscene.com. Luis, Sandoval. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  8. ^ "Martin humbled on Mike Tyson card". boxingscene.com. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
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 Gee (EP). Michig (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mom (Girls' Generation song)[edit]

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

The article lacks coverage. There is very little and non-notable information about the song. It also lacks reliable sources. TerryAlex (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Gee (EP) per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Him Nae!. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:31, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK and US counting units[edit]

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

Another junk contribution from the unreliable Cardarelli book. The Hat trick line is particularly hilarious, as well as technically wrong. A hat trick is three in a row; a pair is two of the same thing -- this "conversion" amounts to noticing the two numbers and meaninglessly dividing them. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: I have already provided you a link for hat trick on other website too. It is not relevant weather a unit in counting in known by all people or not. What is the ground of your arguments. How do you say Cardarelli book is unreliable? did you refer it? What are your grounds? You must have proper evidence on what you are saying? How do you say my contribution is a junk? What is you qualification? Did you ever publish a research paper?

In hat-trick, how can you deny fact of hat-trick is being equality as a counting unit with half. In a dictionary definition, your argument can be true. In unit conversions, it can be compared with half in approximate way with the meaning to comply with the existing meaning in numerical way. Numbers does not cover all the meanings sometimes with regarding usage of units. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl So, improve the table by providing more information rather than recommending to delete each an every small article. Provide a contribution by writing or enhancing an article. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Minimac: What is your point? You can divide some encyclopaedic article entries into dictionary entries by dividing them. Try to enhance the article rather than recommending existing articles to be deleted. Shevonsilva (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm shocked by this gross flock of half-baked things somebody pulled out of a hat. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No policy needed. There is already an article called English units. Several units are already mentioned there and with some sort of description in relation to other units. Additionally, there are other articles like Conversion of units where this information, if properly confirmed and cited, would have been able to be likely accepted into the article there. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is plain rubbish. How is a reader helped by being told that a "Baker's dozen" is "13/23 dozen"? Even it were accurately typed as 13/12, this is pointless. A reader needs a dictionary definition, elsewhere, or a sourced discussion of the origin and use of this term. This list is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, I should have checked, there is already throrough coverage at Dozen#baking, reached by a redirect from baker's dozen. PamD 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a useful List of English words or phrases denoting numbers to include baker's dozen, score, gross, etc, giving for each the numeric meaning with a source (OED, Websters, etc), a link to any wp article, and perhaps brief info on geog or usage context. It might already exist. But this isn't that useful list. PamD 07:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a list at English_numerals#Specialized_numbers, which looks comprehensive and sensible but is unsourced and not perhaps at the most obvious title. Scope for future development, but streets ahead of the article under discussion here! PamD 10:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added hat-trick and decade to [[English_numerals#Specialized_numbers]], sourced to OED and linked to their articles; note that Flock as meaning "40" is not included in OED. If an allegedly English word is not in OED, I would need a very reliable source to convince me that it exists (and would then send the said source to OUP as a potential addition). PamD 10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an exercise in numeric obscurantism. The source cited seems designed to confuse, and the cherry-picked 'definitions' presented even more so. Only the broader concerns over the article creator's usage of this source dissuade me from seeing this article as outright trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the arguments given above; misleading, entirely unnecessary, not really an asset to the encyclopaedia. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless article .....As noted above we have English units so no need for this crap. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A motley assembly of terms better defined in dictionaries, here padded out with absurd conversions. No encyclopedic value and not redeemed by the article creator's latest edit.NebY (talk) 15:18, 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 redirect to Gee (EP). Michig (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Him Nae![edit]

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

The article lacks coverage. There is very little and non-notable information about the song. It also lacks reliable sources. TerryAlex (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think instead of deleting we should find a source to support the fact that the song charted. Anyway, in the worst case scenario (like, if there are really no sources to be found) it should be redirected to "Gee (EP)". --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agreed with User:Moscow Connection. Definitely merge to Gee (EP) if all else fails. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gee (EP). Despite the claim the song was promoted alongside the song "Gee", that seems very unlikely. Sometimes when a kpop group promotes a lead single, they also perform another song from the album once or twice as a way to make their set longer on music programs. That second, "supporting" song is not generally notable, and I haven't generally seen articles for those songs on Wikipedia. I remember the "Gee" craze and was in Korea at that time - "Him Nae!" generated zero discussion outside of hardcore fans. "Gee" was huge and was clearly what was being promoted. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:57, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Koutsiaftis[edit]

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

Fails general notability; autobiography. References are self-published by the author. Blackguard 05:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the only contributing editor is a WP:SPA named HarrisUFO makes me believe that there is also a WP:COI problem here.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find anything in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 2 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Strat[edit]

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

Sorry. I love Gilmour and all of his Strats, but I do not believe this one warrants its own article; it lacks coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think we can accept fan site Gilmourish.com as a reliable, independent source. Plus, I trust Drmies regarding all things guitar, as well as many other things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see encyclopedic relevance here. Other than the fact that it has been touched by David Gilmour, it's just another strat. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 2 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. Consensus is that we don't want these as separate articles. Whether these units would be appropriate as content in some list, and based on which sources, is a separate editorial question. The source cited in all of these, contested by some as unreliable, is: Cardarelli, F. (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Their SI Equivalences and Origins. London: Springer. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1.  Sandstein  11:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt spoon (unit)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a cookbook or dictionary directory. No significant coverage (news search) and only one given source, which has questionable reliability. One may argue for WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, but I can't find any. — kikichugirl speak up! 03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl: This article consists unit conversions and the definition based on the based unit for US unit of capacity used in food recipe and the usage and also it includes references while providing the fact that this article is differed from an dictionary entry. Wikipeadia also includes articles for other units of US unit of capacity used in food recipe, including drop, tea spoon, tablespoon, etc. Before doubting the reliability of the source, all the references in the bibliography list must be pursued properly. Articles which can be enhanced by other authors in future and which enhance the knowledge base of Wikipedia, should not be nominated for deletion. Shevonsilva (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — kikichugirl speak up! 03:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am also BOLDly nominating the following related pages (cooking measurements) for the same reason:

Coffee spoon (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coffee measure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wine glassful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Water glassful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dash (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breakfast cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teacupful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All are non-notable dicdef units of measurements not likely to be more than a permastub. — kikichugirl speak up! 03:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "all the references in the bibliography list"? I only see one. It may be a perfectly good reference, but one reference does not a notable topic make (it needs significant coverage). Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF -- units of measurement have varying degrees of notability, just like everything else. Finally, just because someone could come along and improve an article doesn't mean they will; and "enhancing the knowledge base" alone is not a factor. Sorry. ekips39 04:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl:
I have mentioned you in Administrative board for recommending to delete proper articles like Dash also. You are basically discouraging the expansion of Wikipeadia by not referring the reliable sources properly.
For your question of references, my explanation was related to the source which meant the book which was in the reference list of the article. So, all the references in the bibliography list mean all the references in the bibliography list in the book.
Including missing units in Wikipeadia is a contribution for it enhancement. If it is not done by me, it will be done by someone else in a long future.
Shevonsilva (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I have indented your comments to align) I know you mean well, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and "proper articles" are articles that meet notability guidelines. The source currently listed is under debate by multiple editors. I cannot decide they are bad, nor can you, at least not unilaterally - the community decides. This is where it happens. I am nominating them for deletion, not deleting them. Please avoid accusing me of "discouraging the expansion of wikipedia" - I am not a robot who !votes 'delete' on every single article. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shevonsilva, please understand that you created all of these while the community was giving you clear messages that you ought to stop and discuss whether or not they should be created in the first place. Also, please consider the value of these as standalone articles. I understand your desire to have them represented somewhere at Wikipedia, but maybe a List of XXXX article would be best. Let's ping User:Northamerica1000. He's wise and does a lot of food and drink work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl: Very sorry if I made you upset by saying so. I really worried about your nominations for deletion. People may search for these units to understand the meanings and specially for unit conversions (for example, while referring a cookbook [if these are not available here, they will loose the trust on coverage of Wikipedia and will go for other encyclopaedias]). What I am doing here is at least, try to start to fill gaps in Wikipedia. I need authors who can further enhance my articles by adding more reliable sources. Expect your support too. Shevonsilva (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will you do me a favor and stop using the {{ping}} template? It's a large number of notifications from you in the same time (and yet with all those notifications, you failed to notify me of my ANI...). As for your reply, unfortunately, I'd have to disagree. Permastubs are possible permastubs for a reason - they are not Notable. See WP:BURDEN and WP:What Wikipedia is not. If you think there are other sources (see my nom: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES) then feel free to add them. Many people !vote keep with no intention to fix the article. — kikichugirl speak up! 05:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I see Cooking weights and measures exists. Maybe some items could get listed there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikichugirl: Yes, in a very later process, I am planning to create unit systems articles separately to increase the understandability of the unit systems at once too. Shevonsilva (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This does not seem encyclopedic at all, closer to wp:DICTIONARY type material. Delete the individual articles with no prejudice for adding the information to articles about measurements or lists of measurements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Maunus: This article is not a dictionary entry as it covers more information than usage of information, definitions, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations and translation. This article covers direct definitions from the base units, and convertion from the unit system and SI units too. This article can be further improved by other authors in future. Author must try to enhance the knowledge-base of Wikipeadia rather than recommending the existing articles without being improving it further. Through that process, people will go for some other knowledge base. Shevonsilva (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is less than a dictionary entry because it doesnt carry any of those kinds of information only the conversion measure. This does not improve a knowledge base, just waste bandwidth.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: This article is not a dictionary entry as it covers more information than usage of information, definitions, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations and translation. This article covers direct definitions from the base units, and convertion from the unit system and SI units too. This article should not be in WikiDictionary as this article provides more additional information that dictionary entry. This article can be further improved by other authors in future. Author must try to enhance the knowledge-base of Wikipeadia rather than recommending the existing articles without being improving it further. Through that process, people will go for some other knowledge base. Shevonsilva (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. All these articles are based on a single table titled "US units of capacity used in food recipes" in the sample chapter on page 31 of the PDF. The table just shows things like "1 breakfast cup ≡ 10 fluid ounce". If encyclopedic information about these units is ever discovered, someone can create a new article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Take your choice: notdictionary, indiscriminate, or the GNG. These clearly don't belong here, but they could conceivably be mentioned in a list article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: although I have improved the article Dash (unit) because I couldn't bear to see such rubbish standing in the encyclopedia, I'd rather see it all gone, or perhaps redirected to an article such as Cooking weights and measures. PamD 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge These all seem to be valid. If they should be too slight to stand by themselves then, per our editing policy, we should merge them into the more general compilation, cooking weights and measures, as suggested above. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that not only were these old definitions very fluid, but in these articles they're all based on one source, which means they may not be reliable. For example, a quick Google search reveals no less than three definitions of "wine glassful", none of which are the same as this article. Meanwhile "Water glassful" simply appears to be equivalent to a (US) pint. Incidentally, the source is online here. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did my Christmas shopping at a chandler where I picked up a copy of Pocket Ref - an interesting compendium which I'd not seen before. That has an extensive list of conversion tables too. It's for handymen more than cooks but still has lots of culinary units like the teaspoon, the drop and the pinch. It has at least one of the units listed for deletion above - the teacupful, which it calls the cup, tea. It has this as 142 ml rather than 147 but it's not surprising that there's some variation as many units vary, depending on the place or the context - it has five different versions of the horsepower, for example. So, while we're at the margin here, it still seems that rushing to delete is contrary to our editing policy and is more of a dogpile than cool consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unexpandable dicdef at best, ridiculous trivia at worst. Not absolutely every thing that could possibly be looked up in any book ever needs to have a Wikipedia article. Additionally, dragging Kikichugirl to ANI for "discouraging the expansion of wikipedia" (whatever that even means) is totally unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The only way we could make these units in any way consistent would be to cherry pick sources. Given that sources do not agree on these units I don't think they are really units. It is original research to turn colloquial loose amounts into fixed ratio units unless there is clear agreement among multiple reliable sources. Chillum 00:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all At best these are approximations, if anyone really uses them for anything (except dash, which I use, but there is no measurement for that. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might think that the length of typographical dashes was unimportant but, as we know, there are lots of editors who fuss about the differences between the en-dash, the em-dash and the hyphen. So, it is no surprise to find that there are people out there who care about the size of a culinary dash. See How much is a dash? for an interesting discussion of this. That discussion gives some precise definitions and sources and so, by following those up, we could make more of this topic. Such details can be quite significant -- I quite like the anecdote that the sales of Angostura bitters went up by 30% when they increased the size of the hole in the top of the bottle. One can confirm that cocktail mixers really care about this in sources such as Bitters: A Spirited History. A little more browsing and I soon find a medical source which covers this too, as such domestic measures are common used for dispensing medicine. Simply hand-waving this away on the basis of personal experience and opinion is quite wrong because we are not here to engage in original research but should be summarising what all these independent sources say. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I wrote earlier that the whole lot should be deleted, but now that you bring my attention to it, I do have a soft spot for the article on that unlikely unit, the dash. Its straightfaced assertion that (according to one RS) "1 Dash ≡ 0.00000295735295625 m3 is one of the funniest things I've read in Wikipedia. But no! I must stop myself from mere handwaving and instead summarize what an independent source says. My own source is Kesakatsu Koizumi (as his name would be reversed for en:WP), 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. (It has no ISBN.) Koizumi says that it's one 27th of a fluid ounce, or 1.095 ml. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that various books had attempted to quantify a "dash" in whichever units their readers were assumed to find most familiar, and that these arbitrary and rough equivalents were then earnestly converted (to three or more significant figures) into other units by the unthinking (or leg-pullers). The notion that the article Dash (unit) might live on and accrue "precise definitions and sources" (as both the earnest and the witty pursue "independent sources") -- yes, this is starting to thrill me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I sound miserable, but "fluid oz" isn't even a clearly defined unit: it might be the volume of an avoirdupois ounce, but the American one isn't. Humour tumour rumour, it's so tempting to get a friend to create Bulgarian units of measurement, with the Tog = 3 1/2 Tigs, Tig coming in three varieties, etc etc, but no parody ever quite matches the disaster level of real unreliable sources. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good catch. Koizumi doesn't specify which fluid ounce he means, but when we multiply 1.095 by 27 we get the right number of millilitres for a US fl oz. (Yes of course it's imaginable that he read somewhere that it was one 27th of an unspecified fl oz, guessed that this was the US version, and thereupon calculated it in microlitres.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: But an additional comment: Cardarelli/Shevonsilva have huge numbers of these vaguely specified "Units", but fail to distinguish genuine units which are counted, including even such as "teaspoon", in "add 2 teaspoons of salt", from quantities which are not counted. It is not possible to have "2 dashes of rum" (because actually if desperate you would write "a large dash of rum", and given most people's inability to distinguish linear scale from volumetric scale "large" would be at least twice as big). Imaginatorium (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, here's a rum complication: it turns out that you can indeed say "two dashes of rum", and more certainly you can say "two dashes of bitters". Though I wouldn't read too much into this; I mean, you can also say "two carfuls", but I don't suppose that anybody here wants to suggest that a carful is a unit of encyclopedic significance. (But I'd better not give people ideas.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 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 speedy keep. Nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawaiian composers[edit]

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

ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No rationale for deleting the list article has been provided. It is a brand new list which should be improved rather than deleted, as the criteria for inclusion is clearly encyclopedic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic certainly has the potential for a valid list. The scope of the article is unclear, though; is it limited to Native Hawaiians (a few of whom are already included in Category:Hawaiian songwriters), or will it include figures like Henri Berger who had a substantial impact on the Music of Hawaii? Given this lack of focus as well as its current formatting problems and scanty content, while Music of Hawaii already exists as a much more thorough article on the topic, this list might be best handled by sending it to draft space for further development. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep without prejudice to a speedy renomination - nomination needs to provide a valid deletion rationale. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:20, 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 No Quorum, with no outstanding delete votes and no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 15:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering WiFi[edit]

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

There's no indication that this organization is notable. I had redirected it to the corporate parent, AirWatch, but that was reverted by Mattarmour without improvement. Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT I'm bringing it here. Merger is not an option since there's not a single reliable third-party source in the article; there's nothing to be merged. Huon (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:54, 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, Biblioworm 01:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – A couple of sources I found:
I doubt this is enough to support the article.
– DiscantX (talk) 01:31, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Banks Elliott[edit]

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

Although Elliott (also spelled Elliot in some of the references) was the first Ghanaian ambassador to the Soviet Union, there is no indication Elliott himself meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. (Per WP:POLITICIAN "ambassadorships are not considered international offices" for the purpose of providing an automatic presumption of notability.) The current article's content is largely not based on the given references and unverifiable; in fact, given what third-party sources had to say about him, some of the more laudatory parts are simply incorrect (and other parts are clearly unencyclopedic, such as the discussion of his opinion towards persons "that are inequitable towards him or his achievements"). The cited sources (and the currently unused ones I'm aware of) do not discuss Elliott in any detail and do not allow us to write an article without resorting to original research. Huon (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. Some of the article looks like original research eg In his lifetime, Ambassador Elliott witnessed, discussed, advocated, endorsed, recommended, proposed, advised etc., and been involved in all sorts of intrigues and controversies of the world stage, some in the forefront, and other, behind the scenes LibStar (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • i did a Google search in Russian and couldn't find anything [47] & [48] 09:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Notability is certainly possible, but unproven at this time. Sufficient sources do not appear to exist online, but could exist in 1960s Ghanaian or Russian newspapers which aren't likely to be online. Until such sources actually surface, I suggest a merge to Ghana–Russia relations where the few verifiable statements (e.g first ambassador) can go. Pinging @Joe Decker: who accepted the article at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping! I indicated an older revision of the article in my note below, you may want to sift carefully through the clutter of the sources there, I think there are a few sources which might (or might not) be of helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with either a trim and keep due to the additional sources demonstrated by Joe Decker, or a merge. I would be against deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ambassadors to a major nation are notable--it's usually the very top level of a country's diplomatic service. Not finding something in the Russian Google is even less a reason for deletion than for English language Google for US/UK subjects. After all ,the coverage would likely be in the Nigerian newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ambassadors (even to or from major nations) are not inherently notable. A cogent argument has been put forward in a range of WP forums that ambassadors from major countries to major countries are very likely to be notable and I agree with that sentiment. But articles are still judged on a case-by-case basis. I'd be comfortable with a merge of anything relevant but we still don't have sources to suggest that this would be a significant ambassadorship that requires significant coverage in that article per WP:WEIGHT. St★lwart111 03:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article can be of importance just that there is little online sources to cite. I recommend it's kept and before that the original research contents need to be rectified. Also I see @Dorothyelliott:'s username and article's name both with Elliott to be WP:COI. What do you say @Dorothyelliott:? →Enock4seth (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more or less per DGG and WP:BASIC. First, I think there is a direct argument that BASIC has been shown here. I think the Miller source and the CAIRN source (later removed) both are in-depth, third-party, reliable sources. I recognize that "in-depth" is subjective, however, and the rest of my argument will proceed allowing that people can have different views on that bar.
More or less, I think DGG's point that there are almost certainly better sources than we have is undeniable.
Yes, ambassadorship is not a priori notable in our precedents, but in my long experience at AfD, the ones that have failed to survive at AfD have been those from smaller, distant, and historically unrelated nations. This case is different in that the USSR is, at this time, one of the two most powerful nations on the planet, which raises the likelihood of coverage greatly, that Ghana was occupied by Soviet forces which were expelled during Elliott's tenure makes that doubly so.
I personally suspect the most likely place to find undeniably in-depth coverage is in Ghanan newspapers of the time. Do I have them in hand? No. I have frustrating snippets from "West Africa" in 1963, Ghana Today in 1959 and 1965, the BBC's Listener in 1960, and lots of passing snippets from US newspapers including the 1963 Moscow protest and embassy break-in that I'm sure those of you who followed WP:BEFORE know all about, e.g., [49]. But I think it's reasonable to expect that Ghanan (or perhaps, per DGG, Nigerian newspapers) profiled Elliott outside of what we've found so far at least once, given (a) WP:SYSTEMIC bias, (b) the specific relationship of the Soviet Union and Ghana, and (c) the difficulty of searching based on a common last name, sometimes misspelled, and a first and middle name that were often omitted or abbreviated, and at least once misspelled as well. These factors leave me with a high confidence JBE meets our biographical notability guideline.
I am sympathetic to one concern, I do think there are OR issues, and that they will need to be addressed through our careful editorial processes, and those are not issues we resolve through article deletion. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
j⚛e, I don't strongly disagree but coverage of an event (like the expulsion of forces) is not guaranteed to include coverage of him and he doesn't inherit notability from an event because of peripheral involvement. Don't forget, he wasn't the Soviet ambassador to Ghana - it was the other way around. Its a bit of a stretch, I think, to assume that because he was there and there was an issue, he was involved in that issue in such a way that he is notable. From what I can see, the event itself has received coverage in books and whatnot and that hasn't included even passing mention of him. Be keen to know if that's wrong. St★lwart111 22:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and WP:BASIC.--TM 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are sufficient sources ( a combination of primary and secondary) to show he passes GNG. I, too, agree that ambassadors are usually notable, per DGG, especially, in cases such as this, when he was Dean of his diplomatic corps. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_December_26&oldid=1142629468"