Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 March	16 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. I have no opinion on the matter, but I'd like to comment that this page is useful as a disambiguator. → Call me Hahc21 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Glee[edit]

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

Simply a list of lists which can already be linked from every Glee-related article in the {{Glee}} navbox. While this only links to other more complete lists, Glee discography provides a comprehensive list of songs for each season (in which then a redirect for this to that will suffice). From there, one can easily navigate to individual seasons again from the navbox. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In fact, Glee discography is a far from complete list: it only has the songs that have been released as singles or have charted from EPs and albums, and with the increasing number of EPs and albums being released for episodes—the majority of season 5 episodes have been part of EPs or albums—it is less comprehensive all the time. (It's why I reverted Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ill-advised attempt to redirect this page to the discography, which seems to have provoked this AfD—the list pages actually include every single song in each episode and the lists and discography have differing sets of information.) The List of songs in Glee page averages over 2000 hits a day at present. It is indeed a list of lists, but it's clearly a useful one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this isn't an AfD to delete the individual, complete lists of the songs by season for which this basically serves as a disambiguation page. The point is that a reader redirected to the Glee discography page can parse more information from that, be provided with something more cumulative than a list of lists, and still just be a click away from any of the specific season lists of songs by utilizing the more than adequate and much more beneficial navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirecting to the discography page is misleading and unhelpful, and shouldn't be done. It isn't a true list of songs for the show, but an increasingly incomplete one. In short, it's simply a bad idea. (Yes, I do understand what you want to do and that the individual season lists remain, but with the navboxes closed at the bottom and the "See also" section almost as far down, sending them to the discography page is making the information people are looking for significantly harder to find.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a proper WP:SETINDEX (not a disambiguation page, contra the nom's comment above) for the individual lists of songs by season, and people who type or search for this title will be most likely looking for one of those lists rather than the discography. So this clearly aids reader navigation in its current form. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A list of every song used in the show is much more relevant than a list of songs released for sale. If this page is getting over 200 hits a day, people obviously are seeking this information. It is a no-brainer to keep this page. StellaBella242
- That's the point. This is not a list of every song used in the show. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cyprus Cup squads[edit]

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

Contested PROD. List of players, with no prose. Fails WP:NOTSTATS and bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT. Similar to a previous AfD - 2014 Granatkin Memorial squads JMHamo (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this tournament does not merit a separate article for squads. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS failure for an invitational tournament. No indication that the squads taking part received significant reliable coverage as a subject themselves to warrant a separate article. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs expansion not deletion. Also meets WP:GNG. The nominator's cited recent deletion discussion is about a youth tournament. This is a tournament for senior national teams with references citing notability. Can the nominator clarify how WP:Stats is relevant? Hmlarson (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:NOTSTATS - It's in relation to lists, the fact that they are male or female, junior or senior has absolutely no relevance. JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which number of WP:NOTSTATS are you referring to? This article is not #1) a summary-only description of works nor #2) a lyrics database #3) a long and sprawling list of statistics nor #4) an exhaustive log of software updates - so what criteria are you using here? Also, why is this being treated any different than these 2010 FIFA World Cup squads, UEFA Euro 2008 squads, or any of the numerous similar articles on Wikipedia? Hmlarson (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3, the list of players without any sourced prose is just a statistic of the competition. Additionally, the other pages you mention are for official FIFA competitions, not for invitational friendly competitions. You will see from the link above, this and from the this that there is a degree of consensus forming that minor international tournaments do not need squad listings that are inherently taken entirely from primary sources. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of statistic according to Google: "a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data." A squad listing is not numerical data and WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply here. WP:GNG does. Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why? Where are the sources showing that the squads attracted any particular attention above and beyond that generated by the competition itself, bearing in mind that this is an invitational tournament, not an official FIFA event. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a number of references indicating notability of squads, individual players, etc. It can be improved with more. Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete this article. It preserves in one place the names of all the players in a prominent international tournament of several of the best national women's soccer teams in the world. Given the sparse and lousy webpages for many women's soccer tournaments and teams, future historians of the beautiful game will thank us for preserving this information for ready reference. Smallchief (talk 21:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia isn't a replacement for the lack of coverage of women's football in the main stream media (although the fact that the players here are female has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD). See WP:NOTWHOSWHO - Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source... JMHamo (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia preserves notable information, hopefully forever. Women soccer players in an international tournament are at least as notable as a vast number of people and groups who are covered on wikipedia. To survive, Wikipedia must, first and foremost, be useful -- and this article is useful to anyone interested in women's soccer. Me, for example. Smallchief (talk 22:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must stress that this has nothing to do with women's football and shouldn't be thought of that way... Male or female isn't what this AfD is about so your comments are misguided. JMHamo (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable because it collects in one place a list of notable people -- women soccer players who represented their countries in a significant international tournament in 2013. A lot of articles in Wikipedia are a lot less notable than that. I notice, for example, that an article titled List of American beach volleyball players seems to be in good standing. I'm glad to see that article, as I am to see this one. Smallchief (talk 01:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief:, not sure you fully understands what this list article is trying to achieve. This is not a list of notable football players like the volleyball listing you noted above, this is a list of players who made up the squads who took part in one iteration of an invitation-only friendly football tournament, not the World Cup, not a continental FIFA tournament. I also note the majority of your comments revolve around WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING, both of which are specifically noted as arguments to be avoided in AfD discussions. It would be helpful if you could review your comments in light of this and revise them pointing to specific guidelines that would support a keep !vote. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my arguments. (1) The article does no harm to anybody or anything; (2) The list of participants in a well-established, international soccer tournament involving some of the best women soccer players in the world is more notable that a vast number of existing Wikipedia articles; (3) The article is a useful reference, now and into the far future, for soccer fans and historians; (4) Most articles about soccer tournaments list only the goal scorers. This article lists also the midfielders, defenders, and goalies who are equally important players on a soccer team.

I wonder whether this article would be proposed for deletion if the tournament had taken place in the United States and involved the U.S. national team? Is this proposal to delete an example of "systemic bias" Smallchief (talk 10:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But your arguments are all ones specifically documented as arguments to be avoided. Agrument 1 is a prime example of WP:NOHARM, Argument 2 is a prime example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Argument 3 (aside from being inherently subjective) is a prime example of WP:VALINFO and Argument 4 isn't an argument at all, it does not refer to any form of notability guidelines. Squad listings can be notable, but this is a listing for an invitation-only friendly competition, not an official FIFA tournament. Your final comment regarding systematic bias is unfounded (and incorrect as I know several contributors here are not american) and also does not WP:AGF, you may wish to consider striking it. Fenix down (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are striving for an exhaustive review of wikipedia guidelines, I suggest you also take into account Wikipedia: If it ain't broke, don't fix it "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." Smallchief (talk 14:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is broken, per WP:NOTSTATS as clearly outlined in the AfD rationale. As you have been repweatedly asked, please point to notability guidelines fulfilled by the article and reliable sources supporting it, please do not repeate "I like it / it's useful" arguements without such reference. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my responsibility to persuade you that this article is notable. I'm happy with the status quo. You are the one who wants to upset the apple cart by deleting an article created more than one year ago, reviewed, accepted by the task force on women's soccer, viewed more than 2,000 times, and which has not accumulated a single complaint up until now. The onus is on you to argue persuasively that this subject is unworthy of a wikipedia article. Smallchief (talk 15:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Wah 45s[edit]

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

Promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete They were and are very important in the london jazz scene. We can find references on BBC [1] and many other minor radio stations. Obviously is a jazz oriented indie label, so they are not BMG. But i guess the article covers the subject well enough. Of course there is allways room for improvement. Elandroid (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 7 March 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, KTC (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of thorough coverage from sources. Reference 1 expresses one guy's approval, and isn't really the subject. Reference 2 is an obituary recognizing things important to the person, but not necessarily notable. Reference 3 announces regular notices like EP releases. Reference 4 is a passing mention. Reference 6 also focuses primarily on regular notices, like who is hosting sessions and who has joined, however, I couldn't find any mention on reference 5. --Mysterytrey 01:05, 16 March 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Gordon, Earl of Aboyne[edit]

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

non-notable arisocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as I've already noted at another AfD, earls are fairly high up in the aristocracy, and until recently were automatically voting members of the House of Lords. No specific reason to delete is given, in light of past practice otherwise. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bearian, did you notice that this guy is not a proper Earl? The Earl of Aboyne is a courtesy title accorded to the heir of the Marquess of Huntley. BethNaught (talk) 10:52, 22 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - earls are intrinsically notable. Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even as a courtesy Earl, members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status are notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay[edit]

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

non notable aristocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - earls are fairly high up in the aristocracy, and until recently were automatically voting members of the House of Lords. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 11 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:ANYBIO. Regardless of parents, he isn't a notable person by himself, and the extension given from his lineage doesn't make up for having little coverage, few actions or contributions, and a seemingly weak role or influence in community. If not delete, them merge. --Mysterytrey 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - peers are automatically notable by virtue of being peers. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC) sorry - wrong disussion. I've no strong view on whether the heirs of peers, as opposed to the peers themselves, warrant separate articles, but if the article is not kept it should be Merged / Re-directed, not deleted. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coke, Viscount Coke[edit]

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

Non-notable aristocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edward Coke, 7th Earl of Leicester pending evidence of individual notability. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 11 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- AS the person running the publicly open Holkham Hall and its estate, I think he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 18 March 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. The potential for a merge can continue in a discussion on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp[edit]

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

Despite being the eldest son of a notable Earl and related to the royal family albeit not in line to the throne, I believe this courtesy viscount does not qualify as notable in his own right Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in light of the fact that he has been, and will likely continue to be, connected to important figures in high society in Great Britain. He is closely related to the royal family, and will thus likely continue to be mentioned (at least in passing) in the media. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 11 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer. There's a lot of press coverage of his father, but I'm not seeing much about Louis. When he becomes viscount, or just as he grows older and marries/starts a family, he's likely to get more press coverage. If I'm missing media coverage about him (and not just in connection with his family), then keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his father. He is clearly still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to keeping if others agree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the heir to an important earldom and a first cousin of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, the future King. Additionally, he is the nephew of Diana, one of the most famous women in the World, and the heir to her ancestral home which is what cause me personally to view his article. Eric Cable | Talk 18:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would be right if notability was inherited, but the WP consensus is that it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 22 March 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) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock[edit]

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

Aristocratic heir who has been involved in serveral ventures. I don't see anything here which makes him stand out as particularly noteworthy. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while not all viscounts (especially those who merely have honorifics) would automatically be notable in the 21st century, his charitable work pushes him over the line of WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 11 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- His father has (but does not use) the title Earl of Portland. However the Portland estates went to other heirs of the Dukes of Portland. The Voidaphone Foundation award suggests that someone else thinks that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 18 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary peer (post House of Lords Act 1999) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in any way.TheLongTone (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable old Etonian.TheLongTone (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief search turns up an article tentatively identifying him as the owner of Picasso's $50m painting Child with a Dove. That and any basic reference establishing him as holding a barony (I don't really understand what that means) makes him notable. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems like the family sold the painting to a Qatari collector [2]

Keep. There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jimbo Wales. In passing, more reliable sources must exist and need to be added. Moonraker (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I am not 100 % certain that all barons would automatically be notable in the 21st century, as an important art collector, he would pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 11 March 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. Even if only because of the art, the present (or even past) possession of that painting gives it just enough of a lasting effect to pass WP:1E. --Mysterytrey 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - peers are automatically notable by virtue of being peers. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? simply because some ancestor did something? Notability, unlike a title, is not inherited. A lot of peers, like this one, are simply dreary rich people.TheLongTone (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of peers, the notability comes with the title. And see other replies. Eustachiusz (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 18 March 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy war[edit]

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

The article is fantasy from a Wikipedia-editor; there's no proof of any scholar or expert supporting anything the article says. Corriebertus (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A quick Google search will demonstrate that the term "proxy war" is used by a substantial number of news, historical and government sources to describe conflicts where third parties fight on the behalf of more powerful parties. Its a commonly used term and is by no means a neolgism. That being said, this article is in need of clean-up and is almost completely uncited. However, these issues can be fixed through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a {{trout}} to the nominator; the concept of a "proxy war" is a widely-known and widely-discussed subject. Now the actual content of the article may need (a lot of) work, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep The nominator obviously hasn't done any of the most basic homework, or he would have discovered the 6,000-odd GScholar hits and the numerous books on specific proxy wars. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- Having a list article as a main article is unsatisfactory; and the article certainly requires more work, but it certainly should not be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely used term. Whether the current contents of the article are as good as they could be, or if it should be edited, is another matter. But the concept is clearly accepted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used term. To say I'm surprised that someone would call the term a "fantasy" is an understatement. Orser67 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator might not be a native English speaker, which could explain his/her unfamiliarity with such a common term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic in itself. Most of the article is not really about Ponting at all (e.g. "Ponting said the debutant Cameron White exceeded expectations") and important information about the tour can be merged into Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (where the Third Test gets only a single sentence). St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The level of coverage of Ponting's role in the tour seems sufficient to meet WP:N, and similar articles have reached FA status. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that. I don't know if anyone has ever nominated a FA for deletion, but some of these are just ridiculous. I wonder how they got to FA status. I have nominated Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for deletion, but it shouldn't make much difference here per WP:OTHERSTUFF. St Anselm (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete a lot of article is about the team performance. As captain of course he generates coverage, but I would also apply WP:EVENT here. Did his contribution get reported years after, did his actions result in some major changes to cricket? No. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is excessive and over-detailed for an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solid and very complete article that makes sense to have on it's own. Merging to Ricky Ponting would make that article far to big, merging to Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 would put undue weight on Ponting's role. I agree that the general article should be expanded, but I don't see any value in deleting a well sourced and extensive existing article in order to do so. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bilby. Deficiency in another article isn't a reason to delete this one. Merging it would indeed create undue weight. Are we going to run out of room on the bookshelf for this encyclopedia? Is it a strangely detailed article on a very precise subject? Yes. Are there problems with it meeting the notability guide? Not that I can see. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 18 March 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 Article has been speedily deleted by De728631 under speedy deletion criterion G4. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Barra Montreal[edit]

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

Non-notable dojo. Founder is barely notable on his own. Instructor list is also a bunch of non-notables. GSP's presence is barely tertiary information. This should not even be a redirect as it's wholly non-notable. This was deleted at least once, and should have stayed that way D P 19:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DangerousPanda,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer the concerns and issues raised about the page "Gracie Barra Montreal". I really appreciate this dialogue.

__________________________

Answers to issues raised

__________________________

Issue 1: "Non-notable dojo."

Reply 1: The term "Martial art school" is more appropriate for this facility. By looking very closely at the sentences at the end of the lead section, you will noticed a number of sports achievements (see also Awards section) of this school that has been covered in magazines, newspapers and blogs. The school has been approved and is recognized in the most prestigious International Brazilian Jiu-jitsu Federation (see references on the page). Very specially, the school has been featured in one the Montreal leading TV news programs called "Le Téléjournal". Bruno, the head instructor and the school appeared clearly (interview) and are mentioned explicitly in the program. Please take a look at the YouTube video (record of the TV program in French) referenced in that lead section of the page.

Issue 2: "Founder is barely notable on his own."

Reply 2: Bruno F. Fernandes is indeed a notable Martial artist, a physician (ophthalmologist), 4 times Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu World champion with several other Gold medals in international competitions (ex. 2013 Australian championships). I wonder if there is any other Martial artist in Quebec, Canada who has received as many awards and distinction as Bruno F. Fernandes. This is cleared evidenced in this bio. Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_F._Fernandes

Issue 3: "Instructor list is also a bunch of non-notables."

Reply 3: Please look very closely at the reliable and independent references related to the achievements of these instructors.

In adddition to Bruno, I have very cleary and distinctively mentionned and justified (internal links, solid references) the recognized credentials of the others. For example among others: Olivier Aubin-Mercier is a rising MMA star,[2][19] member of the Ultimate Fighter show who featured in the The Ultimate Fighter Nations: Canada vs. Australia.[20]

Issue 4: "GSP's presence is barely tertiary information."

Reply 4: No, Sir. I have mentioned clearly with supporting references the following: GSP who all UFC and MMA amateurs appreciate so much has trained and received his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) black belt in this school from the hands of Bruno F. Fernandes himself. GSP himself seems to have given credit in his performances to his practice of BJJ. This has been mentioned very clearly in the Le Téléjournal program in the YouTube video. Please take a second look at the video in the references(sorry it is in French).

Issue 5: "This should not even be a redirect as it's wholly non-notable."

Reply 5: After the previous answers, I am confident that you have a better picture of the content of this page and the players mentioned. I am sure this whole story is a simple misunderstanding. Upon creation, the Gracie Barra page has been reviewed and approved by another administrator named PRehse who happens to be a Martial artist himself. Please take a look at his credentials here: : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PRehse

Issue 6: "This was deleted at least once, and should have stayed that way"

Reply 6: I sincerely hope this page is restored after all the detailed explanation I gave. Indeed, the firt version of the page was deleted for good reason: that author knew little about Wikipedia rules. Then, I took matters into my hands and crafted a whole new content from scratch. During this process, I took great care in reading and addressing all the issues that were raised by admnistrators in the deletion log of the first version. This way, I made sure there was no repeated mistake.

Conclusion

__________

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to clarify certains points and defend the Gracie Barra Montreal page. I sincerely hope all the time and effort I put into this creation will be rewarded and the page immediately restored. I am ready to keep on improving the page should you have any other legitimate remark.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards.

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamadoutadioukone (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Still doesn't. It's pure WP:SPAM. Still is. Always has been. I'd bet you have WP:COI as well D P 16:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, people, this article was deleted at Afd just three days ago. It should be speedily deleted as a repost and salted too, to avoid any more of this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was considered to be "different enough" to the original when it was reposted. That's discussion was already had D P 16:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not as stated above review and approve the article. As usual I just made sure that the article was properly integrated so that it would not fall off the radar. Still the founder Bruno_F._Fernandes has his own article and his notability has nothing to do with his school/dojo/club which for an independent article must stand on its own merits. There are several good examples of this for MMA fighters that have their own schools - some are notable most are not. I am reserving my vote because there are significant changes from the last deleted article and I want to explore the references but I think the original AfD got it right.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your comment. I would like to understand this statement: "Still the founder Bruno_F._Fernandes has his own article and his notability has nothing to do with his school/dojo/club which for an independent article must stand on its own merits." In the issues raised, the person who deleted the article seems to imply the opposite as one the issues: Issue 2: "Founder is barely notable on his own." That is to say, he is linking the two as an issue. Thank you.

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:De728631. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Australia and New Zealand)[edit]

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

Recreated page. Previous one was made a redirect. The previously created page too had involvement from the current creator. The previous article : [3] Abhinav (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You "good" editors are actually not. You discourage new editors. This info is obviously important. Keep it please. Turenmastermind (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As per previous jurisprudence - we're not channel listings, that's what TVGuide is for D P 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per DangerousPanda. Matheusoares (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Tagged as so. buff bills 7701 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have "list of" articles for most articles, but this one isn't needed; CN ANZ doesn't originate any locally-based content, and a summary of its most prominent programming is fine for the main CN ANZ article. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qi-Yo Multi-Yoga[edit]

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

The article has no references to reliable secondary sources, only to the website of the organisation, other groups offering yoga classes, and blogs promoting yoga mats. Accordingly it fails WP:GNG - as well as being just another type of yoga, the article gives no indication of its notability. If there is anything salvageable I suggest it should be merged into Yoga or similar. BethNaught (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have also failed to find any independent reliable sources on a Google/Google News search. BethNaught (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three new citations to the article.Jheditorials (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid those sources are still blogs or promotional.. If you can provide any reliable, secondary sources indicating the WP:NOTABILITY of the subject, that would be helpful. BethNaught (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added 5 more citations.Jheditorials (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added another citation. Jheditorials (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for repetitions of previous citations, these include another spirituality/conspiracy theory blog, a notice on a website promoting a training course for Qi-Yo, and yet another blog. None of particular notability. BethNaught (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added 4 more citations. I believe that the deletion tag should be removed and replaced with a notability tag as this article needs to be improved with additional references, but, in my opinion, has enough citations to warrant its existence. Jheditorials (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence from third-party reliable sources that the subject matter meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples of "weasel words" within the article. I have read through it again and do not see any. Thank you.Jheditorials (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are being paid for your edits, I see no reason whatsoever why I should be obliged to give you free advice on how to promote this subject on Wikipedia. If you can't figure out for yourself what is wrong with this unencyclopaedic drivel, that is your problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two phrases that you mentioned on the edits page. I request that the tag be removed. Jheditorials (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tags can be removed when the article meets Wikipedia standards. Which it won't without a complete rewrite. Wikipedia isn't here to provide free advertising. Frankly though, I don't know why you are bothering about tags - you need to provide legitimate third-party reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines - as otherwise, deletion is certain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to merge this article into the Yoga article, which section would it best fit under?Jheditorials (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. There is nothing in the article based on valid sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 February 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 03:02, 3 March 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, buff bills 7701 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to a magazine article about Qi-Yo Yoga. Jheditorials (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'article' is clearly an advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of citations that aren't to reliable sources do not establish notability. Per WP:GNG, a topic must received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be suitable for a stand-alone article. None of the sources meet the exceptions in WP:JUSTABLOG, and the fact that there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't change that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence was presented of meeting WP:BASIC. While many (entirely new) editors dissented, none presented specific evidence of notability, nor a credible policy-based argument. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aizan Ahmad Hadi[edit]

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

I'm sure he's great, but I can't find any real sourcing that isn't a set of Facebook pages Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:Notability :This article appears to be self-promotion and only based on social-networking references (like facebook) and primary unreliable reference. WOWॐIndian ^Talk 08:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is reliably sourced (which is almost nothing) fails WP:GNG. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Don't Delete-Adheres to WikiProject Biography :This also complies to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons He is contributing to a Good Cause and once people would read this then only they would understand what is he doing and will join hands to make a dream come true where NO one would be struggling for FOOD, CLOTH & SHED.

Moreover this article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people.GANDHIANBlogger ^Talk 11:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Within the scope of WikiProject Biography just means 'it's about a person'. Your task is to explain how the subject meets the notability guidelines, not that the subject is human. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User who wants to get this deleted himself comes under blocked user. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WOWIndian&action=edit&redlink=1 GANDHIANBlogger ^Talk 12:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but it doesn't invalidate the deletion request. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Dear Ironholds...Keep is the word I would say rest its up to you. I am a Social Activist for last 12 years because when I wanted to go to schools I failed due to financial issues but somehow I struggled and reached at a level when I help people for their education, I help Cancer patients for free treatment etc . I created this profile not for fame. If you think its like being Non-compliant to Wikipedia policy. Please go ahead and delete it. Rest you also welcome to join this cause to help downtrodden and poor. Visit www.screechfoundation.org and www.jamiacharitabletrust.org Social ActivistHADI ^Talk — Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful, but also demonstrates that yes, you and your supporters haven't taken the time to actually read our criteria for including articles. --Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete : Keep it or delete it...how does that matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahir.bhartiya (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence was presented of meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. While many (entirely new) editors dissented, none presented specific evidence of notability, nor a credible policy-based argument. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Henrique Almeida[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't do anything new, isn't well-known, hasn't made impact in their field, and sure doesn't seem to be regarded as important by other professors and peers, so isn't notable per WP:AUTHOR. --Mysterytrey 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is almost one year old and got no updates from the US Wikipedia community.. It should be expanded not deleted. He´s relevant to the field not only on system theory but on other subjects as well. He´s well known outside US and also have references about his work on the Wikipedia from other countries. I suggest the removal from the deletation list to add it to the article expansion list. If there´s no expansion on the article or after the expansion the article don´t fit on Wikipedia guidelines, then add it to the deletation list, but it should be cleaned up and expanded first. I´m sure Brazil and other Latin American wikipedians will expand the article. --JCarterJr (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you provide any reliable sources that confirm your claim that he is "well known outside US"? I have searched for them, but can't find anything. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One of his books is listed on the bibliography list of portuguese and spanish wikipedia article about systems with other regarded thinkers. I´m looking for more sources and I´ll add it when I expand the article. As I mentioned, there´s a lot of things that should be added, so the article shouldn´t be flagged to deletetion, but to expansion and sources. Also, your argument that he made nothing new is not right. His theory about systems it´s totally new and add a whole new perspective to the field, but I guess this is my fault because of the way I wrote the criticism part. I´ll correct that. You also flagged my account as a new editor that made few or no edits and I don´t think this is fair. I´m new to wikipedia and I pretend to edit articles about systems, brain, consciousness and other related stuff, but that doesn´t mean that I want to promote this subjects, but it means that these are the subjects I can contribute in a helpful way. Also, I´ve edited some articles on the brazillian and spanish wikipedia that are not shown on the US profile for some reason. Let me finish saying that in my opinion Wikipedia is not a place to repeat what´s already online, if this was true, there wouldn´t be a reason to Wikipedia to exist, but the fact you couldn´t find anything about him doesn´t mean that the article should be deleted .But I understand your concern about abuses and I know they happen all the time, but this is clearly not the case. --JCarterJr (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources or even a single citation on GScholar. @JCarterJr: "notability" in the sense that it is used on Wikipedia has nothing to do with "worthwhile" or "meritorious", or anything like that. It is used in the sense of "being noted" (by others, evidently). And that in itself is not enough either: the fact that someone has been noted needs to be verifiable by independent reliable sources. WP itself (including the Spanish and Portuguese versions) is not a reliable source, we need something more substantial. So in the absence of courses, we simply cannot have an article. I'll follow this discussion, so if you can find some good sources, I'll be happy to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I´m a philosophy student and I can say this subject is a hard one to find sources because of it´s complexity and interdisciplinary nature. Also the academic peer review in philosophy it´s different from science. It´s hard for me as a student to find references or materials about this, so any references as this one helps a lot.--185.41.140.192 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:AUTHOR; as per above. Them From Space 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat is unaware of this person. All the books that are claimed in the article may actually be unpublished manuscripts or pamphlets. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There´s no basis to support the books listed are unpublished, manuscripts or pamphlets just because you couldn´t find it on WorldCat. --186.231.125.144 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a matter of fact there is, given that WorldCat is the world's largest bibliographic database. Moreover, none of the listed "books" have a publisher, publication date, etc listed. Please supply these details, if you're aware of them. Agricola44 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Sure. He have a book called Universal Theory that was published by Saraiva Publishing in Brazil, but I´m sure about the year. I think it was 2011 or 2012. The Universal Theory itself not the book was created earlier.--186.231.125.144 (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I googled '"Universal Theory" "Saraiva Publishing"', but found not a single hit. Is the title not available in English? You should be aware that, even if the book is "published" in the conventional sense, it's not enough to demonstrate the subject's notability. Another possible path to notability is the article's assertion that he has published "nearly a hundred research articles", but the source is a dead link. WoS shows 35 articles for "MH Almeida", but they're mostly in the subjects of forestry and endocrinology, which seem inconsistent with this Almeida, who the article claims is involved in law. Any suggestions for further checking? Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment This whole story is crazy. I was having the same problem that you had about the references. I know the book is real because I´ve read it. I also know he created some other stuff and I couldn´t find it any reference anywhere. All I could find was an interview for blog that I´ve never heard of. So I´ve done some investigation and here´s what I found out. The guy seens to be averse to publicity and interviews. The book had a very small publishing and had a small success but it was pulled for no reason. When his work started to show on Wikipedia and other sites, it was deleted later by DMCA request. I have no idea what´s going on, but it seens that the guy doesn´t want any information about him anywhere. Also this clearly doesn´t follow Wikipedia standards, so how do I change my vote? I add a delete line or edit my previous "keep" line? --JCarterJr (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Strike~~ the keep and post a delete below. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No entry should be deleted because it´s good or bad. If he wants his name to be removed from Wikipedia, he should use the proper channels.--213.179.213.109 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that there are no actual sources that can be found (despite heavy searching) for his claimed books or research papers suggest deletion will be taken care of for him automatically. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The book is awesome. I have a copy if someone needs proof. Wikipedia is a mess. A bunch of guys who knows nothing about Brazil deleting articles randomly. Does the administrators want the truth and facts or their truths and their facts? This is just another case that proves that Wikipedia needs new rules. Two deletation requests one right after the other, really? This is what I call impatiality.--177.148.229.49 (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I´m gonna have to agree with the comments above. Even if the article have a few sources, it should be marked as "no sources - credibility" or "help to expand" warnings. This article doesn´t fit the guidelines for being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.170.103 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 13:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bird[edit]

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

Bird is a low-level local activists and was an unsuccessful candidate for the Utah State House. We probably should have an article on the incumbent who defeated her, since members of state houses are notable, but we don't need articles on all failed challengers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have had quite an effect on Utah state finances and a lot of independent coverage. JASpencer (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She runs a land-development company. If we had articles on everyone who ran similar level organizations, we would be overwhelmed by such articles. Most of the coverage is either not independent or passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has made a notable contribution to Utah. Children's Land Alliance Supporting Schools seems like a notable company - what 'level' are you referring to. The fact that more notable people haven't got an article is not a reason to delete this one. Increasing the number of articles would not overwhelm Wikipedia as its not a paper encyclopedia.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:49, 19 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jessica Currin[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Another murder case with no lasting notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete A local murder case with no lasting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. A case where local police failed and evidence was mishandled didn't give it impact, significance, wasn't widely covered, and is only a routine news story. --Mysterytrey 23:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia always keeps Mayfield murders solved via the efforts of British journalists. This story was being reported in Australia in 2004. Again from Australia, now in 2009, we learn, "Susan Galbreath was invited to go to Frankfort by the State’s Attorney General. There, she was formally presented with the first KBI’s Outstanding Citizen Award for her services to justice on the Jessica Currin murder case." The source in the article is BBC dated 2013. Local? No long-lasting effects? Maybe if the delete !votes were to show their work in which searches failed to find sources elsewhere than Mayfield, we'd have some understanding of the viewpoint. Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but Wikipedia always keeps Mayfield murders solved via the efforts of British journalists" Care to show where this is true? In a policy? This is just another rape/murder case. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia doesn't always keep Mayfield murders solved via the efforts of British journalists, you can disprove this by finding a counter-example. You are trying to shift the burden of evidence because you have nothing to show. The burden of WP:AGF is on you WP:BEFORE you start a community process. Where are your search examples that show what you found? I also suggest that you stop using WP:NOTNEWS and instead use WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an always claim to have any validity, someone would have to show 1 case where it has happened. I have seen no such case presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so per John, show us all this precedent for Mayfield murder cases. Oh wait, there isn't one. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John's rebuttal makes an interesting logical point, while your reply seeks to shift the burden of evidence. And your reply is in denial that there is a kernel of truth to what I have said, in that a British journalist getting involved in a middle-America murder is out of the ordinary. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, show us this consensus that you speak of for Mayfield murder cases. It's a simple request to back-up your (currently) incorrect claim. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 13:16, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kasandra Shepherd[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Local news story with no lasting notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete local murder case of no lasting impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. No enduring historical significance, lasting effect, and routine news stories are not notable unless there is anything out of the regular. --Mysterytrey 23:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 13:06, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kimberly Nees[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and no lasting notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about this murder makes the case notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. Routine news stories are not notable unless there is anything out of the regular. The suspect being released after trial didn't spark any controversy and was not widely covered and didn't have much impact. --Mysterytrey 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 22:39, 16 March 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 as per page-creator's blanking of page..

Tiritiri[edit]

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

Should probably be speedied, but not sure under what criteria. Boholano language insult apparently invented this year, so WP:TOOSOON even if legit. The stuff about law and it already being a crime to use it makes it sound hoax-like. Mabalu (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:PROD is described as "... a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion." --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:29, 15 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid bishop[edit]

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

As already noted from November, the article is not encyclopedic and has had no movement. In addition, zero sources except for a WP:OR style use of a Primary Source. It also seems to slant a bit to the Catholic side.

Also, could probably be merged into the bishop article that already exists. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a candidate for merging since the article is entirely unreferenced. I can't think of anything that could be included in an article with this title that could not be included in Bishop, so the article risks being a POV fork. If this article appeared on the new pages list I'd CSD it as a duplicate article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The whole subject of validity can be addressed (to the degree that the concept is even accepted) in the statement that bishops of different churches do not generally officially recognize each others' offices. The rest of it is all RC ecclesiology and doesn't need to be merged into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that "The whole subject of validity can be addressed (to the degree that the concept is even accepted) in the statement that bishops of different churches do not generally officially recognize each others' offices". The Catholic Church, for example, does recognize the validity of ordinations of bishops in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches and some others. The RC Church's position on this bears examination in an article. Despite the lack of references in this article, this is a topic that has been thought about carefully for some centuries in some circles. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense" is too strong a word. I must admit that the RC pseudo-recognition of the EO episcopate had slipped my mind, to be sure. Nonetheless I do not see splitting this out as a separate topic; it is simultaneously too big and too small for that. On one level the invalidity of bishops need to be talked about in the main article itself; but on the other hand, detailed church-by-church discussion is indistinguishable from ecclesiology. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a valid topic. It could probably be the topic of a good article. References would be needed and some aspects of the style would need work. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The specific view of the Catholic Church might be a valid topic, developing what is given in the Apostolic succession article, but the more general question is best dealt with in that other article. The text of this article would be of little or no help for such a specific article. There seems to be no basis for its idea that Catholics believe Isaiah 22 was speaking about the papacy (!), and setting that up as a straw man for Calvinists and Reformed Christians to attack. Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV, OR essay without sources. Yes, it's possible that an article about the validity of bishops and bishoprics could be written. I'd venture to suggest it would need to be split from somewhere (though I don't know of anywhere where the subject is covered in enough detail to justify it). It would also need some solid academic sources, a balanced POV and probably a different title. My point is that this should go but if someone who understands the topic sufficiently wants to, they should feel free to start a new article from scratch elsewhere. Stalwart111 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into Bishop, but the article looks more like a rant (from a largely Catholic POV) than anything else. If there is nothing useful to merge then plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've written a long-ish introductory paragraph that makes the article a bit less of a POV rant and attempts to explain the actual nature of the concept and the reason why it is of interest. It still needs references. This present AfD is an example how POV ranting as opposed to exposition for those not previously familiar with the idea and holding different PsOV can make the topic appear worthless rather than making it appear that the topic needs a better article. I think those voting for deletion should look at the new paragraph and see if it justifies reconsidering. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't find the additional unsourced paragraph to be a remedy. The treatment of the issue at Episcopi vagantes#Theological issues could well be expanded, but it is hard to see what could be taken from the valid bishop article to merge with that discussion. We are not considering some ideal future article on valid episcopacy, much better thought out, better expressed, and much better sourced. What we are considering is this actual article, which does not at all deserve to be preserved. The ideal future article would be worth keeping, but the present one is not. Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not considering some ideal future article on valid episcopacy, much better thought out, better expressed, and much better sourced. What we are considering is this actual article". Sorry, but that's dead wrong, by Wikipedia policy. Badness of an article is not grounds for deletion, but is a reason to re-write. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but an unsourced, irrelevant, POV based, and largely duplicated content is grounds to delete. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree. Actual sources are few and far between (and I mean sources available, not sources provided). Most include the term "valid bishop" in passing as part of a wider explanation of related concepts. Episcopal validity might be a topic worth covering, but not at this title. What you're proposing is that we blow it up and start again which is what is often proposed if the title is worth keeping but the content isn't. In this case, neither is worth keeping. Just pick a better title and start your new article (with sources). Stalwart111 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort to improve the article, but I agree that it is still not an article that should be retained. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is at best pushing one of many views on the office of bishop. The meaning of the term is very different for Mormons, Pentecostals, Baptists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and various other groups. The limits of who is and who is not a valid bishop are even more complex. I am not even convinced that "valid bishop" is the most used term for this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete Few aspects here represent a unique article - "valid" is already represented by Apostolic Succession, and Bishop by Bishop, plus multiple theological views depending on Denomination not covered, but are elsewhere in WP. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2020 ICC World T20[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, can't find any sources to indicate that Australia are going to host this, so fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with WP:CRYSTAL, haven't been able to find any reliable source to say that this will be hosted by Australia. In any event, the tournament is over five years away and a lot of things can change in that time. Perhaps when we get closer to the tournament and the organisers start making deposits to hire the various stadia ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there no speedy delete criteria for future events with no references? Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at that. I think there should be something for a new (unref'd) article created by a user with no other edits. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also WP:TOOSOON....William 13:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 22 March 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slimane Azem[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO due to the lack of reliable secondary sources. YouTube is not a reliable source. JMHamo (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I did not pay attention to the books, my apologies. JMHamo (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see three books cited. Are they not reliable secondary sources? -- Y not? 11:08, 15 March 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 wp:snow keep -- Y not? 12:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT policy, WP is not a newspaper, this crash does not demonstrate any of the criteria set out in WP:NEVENT, no lasting effect, only local geographical scope, single news cycle coverage any claim that it will is pure speculation. This can and should be covered over at wikinews and a single section on Edward Haughey, Baron Ballyedmond's article. LGA _talk^edits 07:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable accident by virtue of notable death. Claims that it should be covered by Wikinews are amusing at best. Even meets the requirements of the highly-lauded WP:AIRCRASH! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:AIRCRASH as an independently WP:NOTABLE person lost their life. Martin451 08:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, the AW139 is not a "light aircraft" as defined by WP:AIRCRASH, it is a large helicopter in excess of 14,000 lb MTOW. Secondly, a Wikinotable person was killed in the accident. Putting the two together gives enough weight to the case for a stand-alone article. As for "no lasting effect", it is way too soon to tell. There is no reason why Wikinews can't cover the accident if it wishes to. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is WP:CONSENSUS that any accident in which a Wikinotable person was killed is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to that consensus? Can it be added to the AIRCRASH page? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was ever a formal discussion, I'm unaware, but this is "WP:EDITCONSENSUS" as defined through long-term precedent and is in fact already mentioned in AIRCRASH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe idea that an aircraft accident is notable because somebody notable was killed is ridiculous. In many case the accident qua accident is unremarkable, and information can be quite adequately included in the persons biography. This is even the case with Steve Fossett, where there is a huge section on the accident and subsequent search. By analogy, why not articles like 1977 Barnes Mini 1275GT crash for Marc Bolan. Or indeed 1999 Winchelsea missed footing accident? In the case of this accident it looks like it might be notable because the aircraft seems to have had a history of problems, so the reason may be of note. Otherwise, this guideline simply values a notable persons life more than a non-notable one, and reflects the fact that even minor aircraft accidents are more newsworthy (not notable) than for example car crashes.TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Otherwise, this guideline simply values a notable persons life more than a non-notable one, and reflects the fact that even minor aircraft accidents are more newsworthy (not notable) than for example car crashes." correct. That's why it's an encyclopaedia, not a listing of everyone who has ever died in every vehicle accident in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their notability is a reason for them having a biography. Their death is part of that biograpy, and can be included in it unless it is an otherwise notable event.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's one perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Bushranger...William 12:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. There is significant national coverage of the event - national broadsheets have given it a significant level of coverage as have national broadcasters. Additional coverage from regional press, both in East Anglia and the North of Ireland. It strikes me that coverage includes "further analysis or discussion" already. This suggests WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE from WP:EVENT are met.

Given the writ issued by the owner against the manufacturer I think there's a reasonable case to argue that a continued media coverage of the even is likely in some form. Yes, at present this is speculation I accept - but not unreasonable speculation. With respect to duration of coverage, WP:PERSISTENCE (again, part of WPEVENT) makes the point that:

...this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

It's not unreasonable either to consider that there is a chance that WP:LASTING might also be met given the writ (beyond any lasting impacts on Norbrook Group or related business interests). For these reasons I'd argue WP:EVENT is at least reasonably well met by itself. If speculation proves to be unmerited and media coverage doesn't continue then I'd certainly be prepared to look again at whether the event meets the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the baron's biography. We're talking a general aviation crash here of someone whose claim to fame outside the field of routine coverage of minor "notables" is apparently going to be "oh yeah, he's the one who was killed when his copter crashed." I also have to say that the "all of class X are notable" supposed consensus rules cannot just be strung together through what is really a kind of inheritance. When it comes down to it, this article is already longer than the baron's own article. Finally, the current name is a ridiculously contrived way of avoiding something along the lines of Baron Ballyedmond's helicopter crash which would give the whole notability and separability game away. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the article is in accordance with the established naming convention for aircrash articles. I've not attempted to "hide" the existance of the article, It is directly linked from WP:ITN/C, which many active Wikipedians use daily. It is also linked from the relevant template, which means that something like 200,000 people would have seen the existence of the article yesterday when they viewed the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article. Lord Ballyedmond is well above the threshold of notability. A British and Irish peer, and the richest man in Northern Ireland at the time of his death. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm in a group that has a sometimes-contentious naming convention, but ours at least arises from an official source which is the provider of the names in question. This made-up in-wiki name is certainly not what the papers and such are using (they seem to call it the "Norfolk helicopter crash"). But any rate the issue of separability from the baron isn't being addressed. Maybe something will come of the accusations and investigations, but at present the story is "Baron Ballyedmond was killed when his helicopter crashed." Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Martin451 & The Bushranger. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A serious accident that has led to the death of a notable person alongside three others. Guyb123321 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 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 that subject does not meet WP:N at current time. Samir 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Menezes Neves[edit]

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

He's certainly the president of a local IIBA chapter, but I don't think this qualifies for default notability. Outside of his activities there I'm unable to find any news coverage, and can't find publishing details on any of his books - although he has been offhandedly mentioned in a couple of IIBA-published books by other authors. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 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 March 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 15 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 6 University (O6U)[edit]

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

Another editor alerted me to this article's re-creation. It has previously been re-created several times at October 6 University for copyvio, where it was eventually salted. This is a new version of the article and while it doesn't have any copyvio, it doesn't really show how this university passes notability guidelines. It asserts notability by way of awards, but I can't really find any actual coverage for the university as a whole. I did find this book mention, but by large there seems to be a lack of coverage overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to notify WP:EGYPT, just to ensure that we are checking for foreign language sources since this university is located in Egypt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tough one. Clearly a private medical-focused institution in Egypt. Has faculty members indicating the school as their primary affiliation in journal articles in pharmacy [4], mathematics [5], zoology [6], periodontology [7], and cardiology [8]. Consequently, I think it is a verifiable institution. Whether it meets WP:ORG is the question, but my personal take is that any school with a medical faculty and teaching hospital is inherently notable -- Samir 06:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we routinely keep articles about accredited, degree awarding educational institutions, unless a hoax is involved. If an Arabic speaker makes a convincing case that this is unaccredited, or a diploma mill, or a hoax, then I will support deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the schools would still have to have had coverage in RS? I'm more familiar with the process for public high schools, where the schools would still have to have received coverage in RS somewhere. It's different for colleges? That doesn't seem particularly fair for the public schools... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to withdraw this if that's the case- I'm just used to seeing existing schools and colleges deleted for lack of RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest problem now -- if there is no longer a copyvio (some copyvio at least remains; cf. it to http://o6u.edu.eg/dpages.aspx?FactId=38&id=821), as in the last three iterations of it this week -- is it's failure to meet wp:v. If that failure isn't addressed by the addition of appropriate RS refs, I think it should be stubbed.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep University exists and is not a hoax, Ministry of Higher Education entry. There are many sources in arabic about the university--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with a stern warning that if it still lacks independent references in six months time, then it will be deleted as a stale draft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY U WANT TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE??!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A7mad 3emad (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paras[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:Artist or WP:GNG. Found next to nothing for this artist on a quick search after excluding Wikipedia/Linkedin/Facebook. However, he might be notable in the Philippines, so bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no sources provided or found. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability in the article (student prizes, group exhibitions and a couple of solo shows fall a long way short of WP:ARTIST criteria), nor have I found anything suitable in other searches including Highbeam, which has various Philippines newspapers in its scope. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pediapediahan, the creator, has left a message on my talk page. I have advised them to come here to understand the reasoning and procedures and notability concerns. They have asked if it can be userfied to them, but I am not sure if the article will ever be notable enough to go live (unless Keith Paras goes on to achieve notability very quickly.). As it is apparently a school project, maybe a move to Pediapediahan's userspace would be a civil way to handle it? Mabalu (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, he hasn't gotten enough reliable coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:20, 16 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Sculpture[edit]

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

Earlier PROD was removed. Article seems to mainly exist solely to promote a book on the subject and an individual's personal theories. As User:DGG suggested in PROD, the theory is already dealt with in Todor Todorov. Mabalu (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like pure promotion...Modernist (talk) 21:04, 22 March 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) 10:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoroshiku Mechadoc[edit]

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

A grotesque mess, about a teevee series, よろしくメカドック (Yoroshiku mekadokku, treated at exhaustive length here within ja:WP) that verifiably exists and that for all I know amply merits an article (i.e. an ordered verbal composition that will impart knowledge and understanding to the reader who is at least moderately literate, attentive and intelligent). The series does not deserve this verbal equivalent of dumpster content. Delete per the initial, explosive phase of WP:TNT. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What Hoary says. (Sorry, I did the wrong sort of delete request, but to me this just looked like the original (ja) article.) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation of an actual article. Is this an unsuccessful attempt at machine translation? I can only extract random nuggets of meaning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable. As above, the article can always be recreated in the future, when someone feels like starting a more coherently written and properly sourced article as suggested in Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. --DAJF (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TNT without reservation. Jun Kayama 20:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject itself is likely notable, since it was broadcast by a major network and made by a major producer, but it would take days to render this into proper English. WP:TNT is the best option. Michitaro (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TNT - The subject is notable, and it should have an article, but the translation is frankly very inaccurate, as if it was done on Google Translate, so it's much easier to just delete it and recreate it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 18 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Tripathy[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable person who got involved in a barely-notable murder case which is covered in Budhia Singh. Not even sure there's much here to justify a merge - the murdered man is a redirect to Budhia Singh. Not sure her additional achievements/skills offer her any standalone notability - I see some mentions [9], and a frankly bizarrely written article here but little serious or in-depth coverage - enough to bring for discussion, though. Mabalu (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is at present a non-notable, minor actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non-notable personality, please read WP:Notability for more details. WOWॐIndian ^Talk 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG entirely. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:58, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forfall[edit]

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

Contested Prod. This is a non-notable short film. There are no reliable, independent sources that I could find which provided substantive coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MOVIE#Reliable Sources. No coverage from sources and isn't widely distributed. --Mysterytrey 00:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No media notice or well-known director and actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources indicating the criterias for movies or GNG are met. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 10:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Cantoni[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:25, 19 March 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.