Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Winery[edit]

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

Non-notable winery. (Yes, even though it is in the Napa Valley.) The only reference is a wine encyclopedia, and I could not find significant coverage in a search - just Yelp-type reviews and tourism websites. (Searching note: its name is actually Acacia Vineyard.) MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right on, whatever works. I wrote it a while ago, after finding that encyclopedia, I wrote a few other articles about some wineries, and it was during a time when I was still figuring out the jist of writing articles about companies/organizations. So it's all good either way. I almost forgot I had written it! SarahStierch (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG because of a few dedicated writeups about the winery, and an entry in the A Companion to California Wine: An Encyclopedia of Wine and Winemaking. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Classic Winemakers of California: Conversations with Steve Heimoff, page 21. "Acacia's reputation in the early '80s was glorious. It was one of the first Pinot Noir 'cult' wineries, and helped to pioneer Carneros [the wine region]."
California Wine Country, page 98, about the founding of Acacia.
Romantic Getaways in San Francisco & the Bay Area, page 365. Two paragraphs about the winery.
Pacific Pinot Noir: A Comprehensive Winery Guide for Consumers and Connoisseurs, pages 1 through 3. Two-and-a-half pages dedicated to the story of Acacia.
North American Pinot Noir, page 196. Two pages of dedicated coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diageo. Acacia was once a notable winery but now it is just one of the many wine brands in the Diageo portfolio. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above by User:Binksternet. No objection to a merge, but deletion would be inappropriate due to the depth of coverage the winery has received. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources found by Binksternet are impressive, and if it used to be notable, then it still is. If someone will add a few of these sources to the article, I will withdraw my nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Agne27's point about a possible merge, but the Diageo article (at least in its current structure) doesn't readily accommodate specific content about its assorted notable wineries. As others have stated here, Acacia was/is significant enough to merit substantive coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody? Ok, I added a couple of Binksternet's references to the article myself, and I withdraw the nomination. (To me there are two possible successful outcomes from an AfD nomination: either the article gets deleted or redirected, or it gets improved.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Hutton Centre[edit]

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

Not notable. Minor office building (at 10 stories not even one of the tallest in its complex) with minor local coverage. Since the overall complex, Hutton Centre, does not have an article, there is no obvious redirect target. MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to support the notability of this structure. Bali88 (talk) 21:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OmniROM[edit]

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

No indication of general notability, only passing reference in sources, International Business Times only covers custom ROMs to influence search results in my opinion ViperSnake151 Talk 22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thought this page looked familiar – I voted to keep it last time it came up on AfD. In fact, it looks like I was the one who located many of the sources. Sure, consensus can change, but I think I fairly conclusively established notability for this article. Additionally, a Google News search for OmniROM returns a few more sources. I freely admit that it's not a very good article, but I'm actually a bit surprised an article that I've edited would come up for deletion. I'm not exactly known for being an inclusionist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been through some clean-up since I originally created the article as I was reviewing the main candidates for alternatives to CyanogenMod. While some of the background has been removed or pushed to the references it does make the article more NPOV. As NinjaRobotPirate says it needs some additional work to make it a more worthwhile article but I don't think it warrents being deleted now. Alex (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the article has already been established, per comments above. Meanwhile, the article indeed needs more work. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 11:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a product the same as many other famous ROMs for android. Starting from a technical viewpoint, even CyanogenMod doesn't have an exclusive forum in XDA-Developers, but OmniROM does. If we can accept articles like AOKP or MIUI, I can't understand why to delete OmniROM. Kou Dou (talk) 15:45, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant kumar PY[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and also the notability requirements for politicians. I get 73 hits on GWeb, including mirrors, Twitter etc. Unless someone can find something for the "P. Y.", this looks like just another of the recent Aam Aadmi Party spam articles about their candidates in the forthcoming Indian elections. Sitush (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:27, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Woman Tradition[edit]

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

Fails general notability. The sources are all self published. There is no information provided which has not been covered in Susun Weed or shamans,witches, midwifery etc. Fails WP:NOT and WP:NEO etc. Ochiwar (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we also have Cunning folk and there is a standing proposal (from 2013) to merge it and a number of other related articles because information is being duplicated. There's certainly no need to duplicate it again. Stalwart111 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge or delete. If this author/book is notable (and I have no idea if it is), there's no reason why it shouldn't be included on those pages. Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The first paragraph is all I am concerend with as history; and that is at most a dictionary definition. The rest of it might make a New Age related article, but I see litlte merit in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, Wise women tradition (note small letters, generic concept) is likely to be notable. The stub is a huge mess. Can we userfy this for more work on it? Bearian (talk) 22:36, 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 Snowball Keep. Royal broil 03:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls[edit]

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

Pretty not notable court case. Sources 1 are primary and 2 and 3 are fleeting mentions. Beerest 2 Talk page 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per section 2 of WP:CASES as it has set a legal precedence. While this may not be a guideline at present, inherent notability is present in legal cases where precedence like this one is set because it can have ramifications for others in later legal cases. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CASES is a failed proposal that flopped pretty badly. I dont suggest using it as a keep argument. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misread what I said. I am not using it as such, I am using the argument that there is WP:Inherent notability in legal cases where precedence has been set. Plus I have since added other sources which means that it should fulfil WP:GNG now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: If it was reported in the supplement to the Federal Reporter, it's notable. Not every district court decision gets into the F.Supp. And not just because of its name ... there are plenty of amusingly-titled in rem cases out there, but most of them (like most federal court cases) do not get reported. If it was reported, it is citable legal precedent (It would be nice if the article could explain this better, possibly through cites to law-review articles that might discuss this). To nominate this for deletion on the stated grounds shows a poor understanding of what constitutes notability based on our other articles about court cases, and indeed a poor understanding of law in general. (Cf. United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness. I fail to see what distinguishes this article from that one) Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fails WP:GNG then it fails WP:GNG. Theres nothing special about court cases that makes them exceptions. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that same reason that he gives is exactly why it does fulfil GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - He says there is some mentions. Big Deal. Beerest 2 Talk page 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I humbly submit that you, Beerest, as a Swede with no stated familiarity with American law, at least not on your user page, are in way over your head here. For the sake of your credibility, I would strongly consider withdrawing this nomination if I were you. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "If it fails WP:GNG then it fails WP:GNG" See WP:VAGUEWAVE. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google Scholar it has been cited in other cases. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Addendum: One of those cases, Riegel Textile Corp. v. Celanese Corp., 493 F.Supp. 511 (S.D.N.Y., 1980), says in a footnote that Clacker Balls settles the question of whether the FHSA's seizure rules violate due process or not. That, I think, establishes notability in a legal context. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the court case has a funny name. No, this does not make it non-notable. The case has set a precedent used in several others cases and its been reviewed in law journals. Its had more than a fleeting impact.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the above, just because this case has an odd name, that in no way invalidates the notability. Mat ty.007 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Jury's decision seems fairly unanimous. I move to request the usage of the Snowball clause and dismiss this case for closure M'lud. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the weirdest precedents in United States law. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. buff bills 7701 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:45, 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 delete. clear consensus that the subject is non-notable , and the article promotional . Either reason would be sufficient DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin McShane[edit]

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

Requested by User:198.103.184.76. The IP's reasoning: "Reasons for nomination for deletion are because the subject lacks notablility (WP:GNG), the article appears to be self-promotional (WP:SPIP), and the bulk of edits appear to have been made by accounts that are solely intended to edit this article." Lugia2453 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO, the article fails WP:GNG with particular issues in terms of WP:SPIP. I could not locate sources to substantiate a claim of notability. The article is essentially biographical in nature (with several issues relating to WP:BLP) and clearly serves as an advertisement for the subject's business. The article has serious problems throughout relating to WP:NPOV but particularly for the info provided in the Major Cases section as well as the external links which appear to run afoul of WP:EL. At the same time, I would have no issue if all of this information were to appear on a user page. — RB Ostrum. 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional BLP devoid of anything but trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Im not sure how to do this but I will tell you that the reason you do not find Justin McShane to be notable is that you are not in the profession. I am also a criminal defense lawyer and I can tell you this guy is nationally recognized by many people in the forensics community. He has taught thousands of lawyers over the years and is well recognized in forensic science circles. He is highly respected in the field of forensic science and is very notable in those circles - forensic science & law. I suggest that his page remain up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.26.10 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) — 216.86.26.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is often advanced. I don't disbelieve you but Wikipedia's criterion is Verifiability not Truth, so you should find the sources to justify your claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Understood. I can tell you that the Boston Globe called upon Mr. McShane for comment when it ran a story on one of the United States biggest lab scandals. He was featured on the front page of the paper in this story. http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/09/29/how-chemist-drug-lab-scandal-circumvented-safeguards/uR3jTdvw4sWe3gLj0m2GnO/story.html I think that tends to show his notoriety in this field. After all they could call upon anyone the world and they chose him as one of their experts.

I would also point you to 182 different reviews from attorneys all across the US applauding Justin's work. http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/17110-pa-justin-mcshane-623862/endorsements.html

More support for his notoriety in the field is this upcoming seminar put on by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. They also recognize him as notable in this field: "premier expert in the nation" http://vimeo.com/88015475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.182.54 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "notoriety" the word you want to use? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. Article is just an advertisement. The subject may very well be respected in his field, but that doesn't mean that he is notable as pertaining to WP:GNG, it just means he's doing his job. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NewsBank search shows ~150 results in reliable newspapers around the country. None of them are full length biographical pieces, but that is not required. They are all about cases he has been involved in, which garnered press attention and for which he is quoted. A person can be an expert in a field and widely quoted and thus become notable. If the article has promotional problems that is content-level, AfD is topic-level, articles shouldn't be deleted due to content. -- GreenC 15:13, 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 merge to St. Jude's Academy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Maples Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable private elementary school, de-PRODDED w/o explanation by article creator. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Jude's Academy, of which it is now an affiliate per [1]; the Maples School is already mentioned in the St. Jude's article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 20 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mahood[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG since there are no references. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA with only 2 top tier fights and fails GNG with no good sources.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 26 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 is well established that the athlete has not only to get on the roster, but to play in a regular season game-- both as a general rule, and for this athlete in particular. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Caylor[edit]

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

Does not mean WP:GNG. Notability not established. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON as he never appeared in a NFL game (http://www.nfl.com/player/drewcaylor/2505694/careerstats). Notability tag since April 2011. X96lee15 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He didn't play in a game, he isn't notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was on the Active Roster of an NFL team so he is notable.User:chartran 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 14:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete' Being on an Active Roster does not meet guidelines of WP:NGRIDIRON. He needed to appear in at least one game to meet said guidelines. I can't find any record of him appearing in a game in the NFL, CFL, or Arena Football League. Canadalovesnd 10:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college offensive linemen rarely generate the press required to achieve WP:GNG and I'm not seeing any in this case either. Having not actually played professionally the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON as well. I cannot find a measure of notability that the subject passes at this time. There may be some outside of football that I cannot locate, but I need it to be introduced by someone who is aware of it before I can consider that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON and I can not find coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, either. Gong show 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:45, 26 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 deleted by admin Jni. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baka no san[edit]

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

Appears to be original research Imaginatorium (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a game that falls under WP:MADEUP. Probably could have been speedily deleted under A7 (no indication of importance).Mdtemp (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged. Doesn't meet A7, but it does meet A11 (made up by author). It's some game that was made up by random students at a high school - clearly doesn't meet notability standards. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:10, 20 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! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Beauty[edit]

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

A film adaptation of Miremont's own photo book, I cannot find a significant coverage in multiple WP:RS indicating that this in fact a work that satisfies WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anywhere where it has been claimed that this film is an adaptation of photo book by Miremont. Shawn in Montreal refers to a "photo book" at the filmmaker's page (which he has also nominated for deletion) as well. Perhaps Shawn is referring to the title of a photography exhibit or an essay Miremont wrote on Aesthetics ? Either way, it is not probable that a filmmaker would adapt a film from an art exhibit or essay on Aesthetics. So please give a reference to this "book" if you are going to use it to justify content deletions as you do on the filmmaker page.

This film's page was recently created (by me). However it should also be understood that this is an "experimental film" and not a Hollywood blockbuster. For an exhibitor to fly the filmmaker across the ocean to screen an experimental film for such a large audience is, in itself, notable, given the genre. These days, experimental films are usually given small audiences of 10-20 people and with very little publicity at colleges (which is where I saw this film myself). Nynewart (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2014

Your statements at AfD seem to have a pattern of disavowing things you've written, or edits you've made. In this case, it is your statement that the film and some written "manifesto" version of The Resurrection of Beauty "features the same elements of saturated color, stunning locations and models." Whether one calls this manifesto a printed work, or the film an adaptation, is of no consequence to the central question: is this subject notable. So I don't care to argue the terminology with you. The onus is on you -- or other editors who feel the page is worth keeping -- to produce some bona fide WP:RS. I think we all get that this is not a Hollywood blockbuster. But if you take a look at, say, Category:American avant-garde and experimental films, you'll see that notable experimental films are discussed in secondary sources. And no, flying "across the ocean," remarkable a feat as that is, to screen a film is not a criterion I find at WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but . . . If the Mark Miremont article is kept (which seems rather uncertain at the moment) this should be merged and redirected there. Otherwise I imagine it would have to be deleted. I haven't found any indication that this piece has any notability separate from that of its creator. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is below was written while at the same time the MERGE option came up. Which is a very interesting idea. I think I will work on that next week if you don't believe it would be a waste of time. I think Arxiloxos is right about the two being better off together at this point. ++++++

Below is what was written in response to Shawn. I will post it here as I think it clears up a misunderstanding he has been using on both pages... :

Shawn, I am merely trying to be polite and non-confrontational. My being polite does not mean I am disavowing anything, however. I don't appreciate your characterizations.

So let's be very clear now: You have been referring (on this page and on the filmmaker's) to a "photo book". A "photo book" means, to those people interested in photography, a book of photographs.

I have never, anywhere referenced a "photo book" or any kind of "book", nor have I said that this film is based on one. Nor did Mamie van Doren write the quote I referenced because she was in a photo book by the filmmaker, as you wrote on the filmmakers page. These are misconceptions "you" have written and then as justification for content deletion.

I have used published sources to note that the filmmaker screened this film in conjunction with a photography exhibit in a separate art gallery and with the release of an written essay on Aesthetics/a manifesto. There can be several things with the same name, but they can refer to very different things. Just as there are several Shawns in the world, there is only one you. Here, you took different things with the same name- "a film", "an art exhibit" and an "essay/manifesto" and confused them and gave birth to a "photo book". This is understandable when different things have the same name. However, you then took an additional step and claimed this film is based on a book (it isn't) and that a famous model was "logrolling" becasue she is IN this non-existent book (you did this on the filmmaker's page). Intended or not, when when deleting content and knocking notability, it is important to understand the subject.

Regarding the list of experimental filmmakers you suggested, did you look at them yourself? I only looked at the first name on the list, Kenneth Anger, whose work I also know. If you look at his filmography: Kenneth_Anger#Filmography you will see that not single one of his many films in the last 14 years has reference to justify its existence on wiki. In fact, that page has so many unsubstantiated assertions that it is almost unreadable.

The thing to see here is, in the experimental genre of film, it takes time for criticism to be written becasue these films rarely see the light of a cinema - unlike mainstream, or even art films. So for you to ask that I compare this brand new film that was just released to seminal works that have been around and written about, some since the 1930s, is just disingenuous.

I get your point. I do. And if this were a commercial film, I would agree. But as a work of art, which is what experimental films often aim to be, references from art galleries and from large exhibitions venues that host them ARE of merit.

Nowhere did I write "this film is awesome!" "This film is this or that". Everything came from a screening venue's notice, an established art gallery announcement and IMDB.

This page, and this film, are new. Give them some time. There are enough references here, typically used for this genre of film, for the page to stand as is. Hopefully others will improve upon it as well, when they discover it here. Nynewart (talk) 6:23 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're resorting to an argument that we like to call here, WP:OTHERCRAP. I don't know know if all of Kenneth Anger's film articles are fully sourced, and I suppose you're free to nominate any that you find faulty, keeping in mind WP:POINT. But Wikipedia:NOTFILM#Other_evidence_of_notability does allow for cases with film articles where a notable person has been significantly involved, even if the article fails other tests for notability. Mark Miremont‎ is not such an individual, not yet, anyway -- much as the article used peacock language, unreliable and primary sources, and some frankly absurd claims (again, the "philosopher" thing) to give the impression that he is. Or so is my contention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But, Nynewart, the difference is that Kenneth Anger is widely known and written about: for example, more than 2,000 references at Google Scholar [2]. Mark Miremont, I regret to say, has . . . zero. [3]. That's not the final word but it's not promising. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying and your points are helpful. Thank you. I forget how dealing with strangers online can be and it is hard not to respond to perceived offenses and misunderstandings sometimes. I'm done reacting and will work on the merge and edit out anything not appropriate from both pages next week. This is not my full time gig, I just had some time off recently :) Hopefully others will add the pages as well. Help is always better than curt criticism, I think. --Nynewart (talk) (UTC)
It is entirely possible that both of your pages will be deleted, as I continue to firmly believe they should. Though likely not by next week. Nor will there likely be a "merge" by then. This process at AfD takes much longer than that, usually -- which will give you and others ample time to find and add reliable sources to both articles, should they exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will help get them in proper form and I will research how to better do that. --Nynewart (talk) 8:05 EST — Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this page should be retained for the genre-related reasons noted above. But to avoid further confusing/irritating Shawn, who nominated this deletion, I will limit my input about this film to the long established page about this film's director, Mark Miremont, which Shawn has also nominated for deletion. Please see my input there and thank you.

Nynewart (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've contested your points at the other Afd, as I believe they do not WP:VERIFY your claims for notability. As for this one, there is no such thing as a "genre-related reason" to keep an article such as this. WP:NOTFILM does indeed offer additional criteria for retaining film articles, but yours is not one of them, nor should it be. "Experimental films" do receive coverage from reliable sources -- if they're notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be no source for notability. I think this "work in progress" ins a classic case of "not yet notable." Whether it is even significant enough for a redirect does not seem at all obvious. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian news satire websites[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, article has just two proper article links while the rest are external links for various non-notable websites. There doesn't seem to be much scope with this being more of a directory for various Indian comedy sites or blogs. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough notable entries to justify this level of specificity. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are long lists and short lists, but we do not restrict ourselves to the long ones. The number of entries necessary to justify a list is two. There are already two, and possibly some of the others can be shown to be notable. (And I think this is a case where if might provide appropriate brief coverage for any that are borderline notable) DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 27 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 among editors who are able to stick to one account and cite policy: not notable. There is no inherent notability for a political party; having a few people run here and there does not make the party notable if those runs are not discussed in depth. Mentions of some candidate or other like Heos in the Boston Globe fall into the man bites dog category and do not add up to passing the GNG, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Visions Party[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable party. WP:MADEUP. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page, Wikipedia Content Twelve Visions Party, should not be considered for deletion. In today's America we are struggling daily to retain a sense of civil liberties and constitutional rights. I have always admired Wikipedia due to the fact that there is an unbiased approach to archiving content without prejudice. The desire for the advancement of knowledge and retention of data is crucial to the development of people and civilization throughout the world.

Censorship occurs when voices are silenced and regulated. When the vote on the CISPA Laws were enacted; the individual perceptions of political entities became immediately empowered to determine what types of behavior were considered to be a threat to national security.

A perceived threat is not a Constitutional observation as categorized under the guidelines of Habeas Corpus. The Twelve Visions Party, its Members comprised of State Affiliates across the United States attempts to retain the right to represent the people as a Political Party that is outside of a right or left wing organizational perceptions. The Twelve Visions Party, though small and virtually unknown, has thousands of American Citizens contributing both time and money towards its forward movement and its goal to end corrupted political practices and the continual removal of the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens within the United States of America.

Wikipedia hosts articles on DC Comic Super Heroes who are not real entities. There are articles on curious spectacles throughout its enormous data base. If I had not attended the Veterans Memorial Event in Los Angeles where Presidential Candidate, Jill Reed was speaking, then perhaps I would say that this article should be reviewed for deletion. However, the Twelve Visions Party is a small fish in a large ocean; and yet just the fact that it is still still struggling on through the years in the deep waters of political obscurity should be efficient evidence that its peoples and representatives are a viable Political Party and Movement.

I recommend that it retain it’s listing here on Wikipedia as it is a congregation of Members throughout the United States that, though small and under-funded are working towards political change. Looking2You (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Looking2You (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Well, it's not made up. It's got coverage from local Boston papers, at least: [4], [5], [6]. I can't find anything beyond that, but further coverage may exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, This is definitely NOT made up and it is certainly notable. Not only has it had coverage from Boston papers, it has national coverage from Fox News[7]. In addition they have filed in California with the Secretary of State.[8] [9]. Jill Reed also has notable press from several Colorado sources[10], [11] and[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twosided55 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~, This is notable and NOT made up. Richard Heos under "The Twelve Visions Party", ran in Massachusetts for the state Senate in 2013 to fill the seat vacated by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findinggold (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC) — Findinggold (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Twosided55 (talk • contribs). [reply]
~~KEEP~~. This is a notable and valid Party. Jill Reed (The Twelve Visions Party) – 12,032 votes. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banner Gal (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC) — Banner Gal (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Twosided55 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of Jill Reed mentioned by the puppetmaster Twosided55 is trivial, not "notable coverage". The Boston press is really about Heos and mocks the party. I guess the only reason so far to keep it would be as an example of a joke (probably the wrong word) party. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I received a response on my Wiki talk page from Mr. Doug Weller stating quote, Our articles are meant to be built upon what reliable sources say about a subject, not about what the subject says about itself." Indicating that Wikipedia has a policy of Non-Bias towards articles and content. Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ I find it little disheartening that the English Editor here on Wikipedia would make it his personal purpose to discredit The Twelve Visions Party in such a blatantly biased manner as he is an Editor here on WikiPedia.

This goes against NPOVFAQ as cited above. This is a mis-use of Wikipedia's tools and knowledge base, in my opinion. The history of this deletion subject shows that Doug Weller is actively using his powerful knowledge of Wikipedia's wonderful tools in a bias manner against this Twelve Visions Party page listing. Mr. Weller states above, "I guess the only reason so far to keep it would be as an example of a joke (probably the wrong word) party" is his own opinion and he has provided no verifiable proof of his statement;whereas those that are in favor of this page retention have, as inexperienced participants attempted to provide, and have provided legitimate links.Looking2You (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who is "the English Editor" and why would it matter if an editor was English? It isn't me since I'm not English, and it isn't my purpose to discredit the party. My point was that the most detailed coverage I've seen is mocking the party. There may be non-mocking material with similar coverage I haven't seen. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE A political party without a headquarters does not seem notable, even if it had a candidate for President who does not have her own article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The Twelve Visions Party article should not be deleted. This is not a made-up or trivial party. Jill Reed ran for the office of the President of the United States in 2012 under the independent Twelve Visions Party in 14 states, receiving 12,032 votes.[15] Here are some examples: Colorado[16][17][18], Florida[19][20], Delaware[21][22], Georgia[23][24], Indiana[25][26], Kansas[27], Illinois[28], Arizona[29][30], Maryland[31], Maine[32], New York[33], Ohio[34], Utah[35], Virginia[36], Minnesota[37], Wyoming[38].

It should also be noteworthy that Richard Heos ran the for Massachusetts state Senate in 2013.[39]

With all of this proof cited here in this article of deletion, how can the Twelve Visions Party be "made up"?

Note that the Wikipedia article "Personal Freedom Party" is not up for deletion. I would think that the Wiki Community would find this party a candidate for deletion as trivial. It is charted in only 3 states, where the Twelve Visions Party was chartered in 14 states when Jill Reed ran as a legitimate Twelve Visions Party candidate for the office of the United States of America. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — JoshuaSeymour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The only thing you're going to accomplish with the sockpuppetry is to make sure that the closing administrator will ignore your opinion. Seriously, stop it, now, or I will go to a checkuser and ask that your IP range be blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sockpuppetry? This is my original post. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence of other possibly non-notable articles is not a reason not to delete. In any case, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Freedom Party. As for my comments about the party, they were based on sources such as [40] which clearly mocks it and is used as a source in the article, and [41]. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: In addition to the citations I previously provided, there are other candidates who have run under the Twelve Visions Party, notably in 2010, Mr. Sansford Cramer III running for a City Council Seat with the City of Victorville, CA. [42]

The other eight candidates have percentages as follows:

• Frank Atkins, former quality control sampler — 1.25 percent • Byron Leonell Castellanos, building general contractor — 6.11 percent • Sanford W. Cramer III, independent contractor — 2.58 percent • Curtis Green, businessman and educator — 7.48 percent • Shawn Hubbard, law enforcement and transportation — 3.61 percent • Marshall Kagan, retired CPA — 7.13 percent • Robert Larivee, executive — 1.16 percent • Carlos A. Proano, civil servant — 4.12 percent

At Smart Voter.org Sanford Cramer III is listed as running for the seat of City Council Member, San Bernardino County, and City of Victorville, CA. Mr. Cramer received 1,527 votes for this position, totaling 5.97% of the overall votes for this position. Sanford W. Cramer, III 1,527 votes 5.97% [43] [44]

Here is an additional reference to Twelve Visions Party Candidate Richard Heos who was on the ballet in Massachusetts Special Senate Election to fill John Kerry's term, an important and notable election that cannot be trivialized. [45]

Jill Reed, the Twelve Visions Party presidential candidate in 2012, who was on the ballot in Colorado, but who filed as a write-in candidate in many other states [46] was interviewed on an independent talk radio program. [47]

On the FEC website, [48] there are (2) Ballots showing a Twelve Visions Party Candidate(s); meaning the Twelve Visions Party had met the State's requirements for being placed on the 2012 Electoral Ballot as a "Write-In Candidate".

Additionally, The Green Papers [49] shows any candidate for President of the United States reporting a minimum of $200,000 in "Total Receipts" to the Federal Election Commission and is thus defined as a "principal candidate" for the purposes of 'The Green Papers' website. Each 'principal candidate' is listed per Political Party.

Also, the campaign funds reported to the FEC for the Twelve Visions Party as mandated totaled $45,217 during the campaign year and was thereby defined by the Federal Election Commission as a "Principal Candidate" in that the Twelve Visions Party shows below the minimum total campaign receipts as per Federal Election Commission Guidelines. Files on E-File with FEC.Gov [50]

Finally, here are the results of the 2012 Presidential Election: Please note Jill Reed as Twelve Visions Party Candidate.

"2012 Presidential Election final vote (with 95% of precincts reported) - from Wikipedia and Google Elections: -Barack Obama (Democratic Party) - 65,909,451 - 51.02% -Mitt Romney (Republican Party) - 60,932,176 - 47.16% -Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) - 1,275,950 - 0.99% -Jill Stein (Green Party) - 469,572 - 0.36% -Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) - 122,378 - 0.09% -Roseanne Barr (Peace & Freedom Party) - 67,359 - 0.05% -Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) - 42,995 - 0.03% -Tom Hoefling (America's Party) - 40,609 - 0.03% -Jerry Litzel (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Jeff Boss (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Randall Terry (independent) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Merlin Miller (American Third Position Party) - 12,895 - 0.01% -Jill Reed (Twelve Visions Party) - 12,032 - 0.01% -Richard Duncan (independent) - 12,032 - 0.01%" PLUS 14 MORE LISTINGS. [51] [52] JoshuaSeymour (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link 42 above is to Ballot Access New which in turn links to an article in The Sun (Lowell)[53] which discusses Heos in some depth. Interesting to see that "According to Heos, the party is based on the economic thinking of Ayn Rand". That can be used in the article if we keep it. The radio interview is with "Neothink Radio Network", run out of someone's home[54] and which "helps to promote awareness of a non-political movement called The Twelve Visions Party." I keep going back and forth on this article, but if the best you've got for the presidential candidate is an interview out of a person's home who is in fact promoting the party, that's pretty meaningless. Neothink seems to be another Mark Hamilton thing.[55] Ah, there's a Canadian website.[56] "To complete the evolution into universal prosperity, the powers of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches must be taken away from the opinions and agendas of flaw-filled man and put into a flawless Prime Law." Hm, what is this Neotech secret society Hamilton runs?[57]. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Doug Weller inquiring about Mark Hamilton and his society, here is a mentoring session Mr. Hamilton gave to his Neothink Society think tank about the TVP (Twelve Visions Party), the Prime Law, and eradicating the rule of man. [58] (The Neothink Society later put this video on YouTube, which has received 4.5 million views.) And here is Mark Hamilton's 296-page TVP political manifesto, "The Life You Were Meant To Have". [59] Here are some snippets of MH mentoring his Neothink Society think tank. [60] I can provide more information on the founder of the Twelve Visions Party if WIkipedia editors want. BTW, the Ron/Rand Paul crowd tend to gravitate to Mark Hamilton ideas. [61] [62] JoshuaSeymour (talk) 21:42, 16 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Relist rationale: The sockpuppetry here is ridiculous, and quite a number of comments here do not direct themselves to policy. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo significant independant coverage. Any political party that has made so few ripples is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ See this article about the popularity of Jill Reed and inclusion with the Libertarian and Green Candidates on the historical first online database: [63] To get some intelligent insight into what the Twelve Visions Party is, look at the discussion on wiki answers: [64] The Twelve Visions Party is also active in Canada [65] and in Australia. [66] JoshuaSeymour (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one !vote per account, I've struck through this one. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, with this as a goal: "Sexual immortality, have the sexy body of you always evied , internal romatic love, enternal love making, biolagical immortality/stop the process of aging , brint the child of the past, have the love of your life." (I removed the all caps but left the spelling errors) it's got an attractive platform! (A member posted this at Talk:Main page along with other stuff). Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, however, a possible opportunity for revision from persuading point of view should be made as the initial opening paragraph, with the exception of the first sentence, appears similar to that of an advertisement for recruitment -"an appeal to virtue" similar to that of Augustus when he appealed to virtues of Roman patriotism-; to a simple stating of general facts from "no point of view" -as found in the first sentence of the opening paragraph of the Twelve Visions Party page to cite an example-. Giving a specific person's quotes their own Quotes section where necessary, giving Mark Hamilton his own section for Political Views of the Twelve Visions Party, etc, would arguably be a few more recommendations to bring the page closer in-line with Wikipedia's policies.Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Notoriety should not be the case issue for deletion raised here as it is an illogically persuading argument -ad populum- for its deletion and retention alike as the Twelve Visions Party wiki-page does in-fact cite political party events and party involvement, as it is, making the political party and page itself worthy of note, albeit, in need of some extensive revision regardless of political popularity at this point in time. I posit that having raised the discussion for deletion citing "non-notable party" at this point as being a reaction to having initially read the persuading opening paragraph of the Twelve Visions Party wiki-page to re-actively raising a likewise equally persuading argument for deletion through discourse rather than the logical case which should have been raised; "In Need of Revision". Should the raised discussion for deletion be an accumulation of circular "my opinion of what is notable and not notable is better than yours" arguments? That would lead to a stalemate at the end of this discussion, would it not? Wouldn't the final judgment then resort subjectively rather than logically to deleting or retaining the page? What would be the benefit? To establish an equally illogical precedent from which to gain standing in future discourse. Rather than acquiescing to "let's just flip a coin" thinking, if no revision can be made or is not made; however, then an argument for deletion should be raised that "the Twelve Visions Party page still does not meet the Wikipedia standards for retention," citing, "failure to meet NPOV Wikipedia standards." In my humble opinion, Wikipedia pages should "speak from no one, to no one". It should be a simple relay of information containing valid facts logically and objectively retrieved from obtainable data from numerous verified sources with the expectation that no one is going to read it nor feel anything in any direction about its contents, which the Twelve Visions Party page could likewise stand to benefit from citing more verified sources on their page where possible.Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ AQ Methodologist (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Madkracker6969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment On the Personal Freedom Party debate page for deletion (Note: NOT on the Twelve Visions Party debate page), user -User:Ad_Orientem posted the following: "Political parties are not inherently notable. That said I do tend to favor a broad inclusionist position when it comes to this topic, provided we are talking about a national party and not the state chapter of a minor party. But as with all topics, common sense dictates some limits need to be applied. In the absence of clear guidance from WP:N beyond WP:GNG (which they don't seem to meet), my baseline for notability is ballot access. Are they now, or have they ever been, on the ballot in any state? As far as I can tell the answers appears to be no. If/when WP:RS evidence on the contrary is found I am open to reconsideration. -User:Ad_Orientem 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)" I agree with -User:Ad_Orientem standard for a notable political party, and I will point out again that the Twelve Visions Party has had 3 candidates on ballots in Local (Sanford Cramer), State (Richard Hoes) and National (Jill Reed / Tom Carey) elections and thereby is a notable party mitigating against deletion. JoshuaSeymour (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local party. Orser67 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to be a promotional vehicle for an otherwise minor party. The only substantial coverage I see is the Boston Magazine article that focuses on Heos' run for Senate. That said, even though the article is cited, there's no mention of the journalists' summary of the party, including "The party managed to get a presidential candidate on the ballot in Colorado in 2012. Despite getting Heos on the ballot, the party’s platform and publicity efforts in Massachusetts are not particularly … cogent."[67] —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is all more labyrinthine than I suspected. The leader of this party is Mark Hamilton - but Mark Hamilton is actually a trademark of Wallace H. Ward.[68].[69]. Integrated Management Associates doesn't mention this but does mention Hamilton and Neothink. Whoever Hamilton is, he pushes Neothink, developed by Wallace H. Ward's father Frank R. Wallace. I am wondering if this is all some sort of Neothink front.[70] If we actually keep this article we would have to be very careful that we aren't giving Neothink, which some say is a cult, publicity. We also need to be careful about how we deal with Mark Hamilton There's also a Facebook post from "Mark Hamilton" about this AfD. I'm taking User:Shlomif/Neo-Tech to MfD - it is also about Neothink. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's really interesting information. In fact, your consumer affairs source is the first item in this discussion that makes be begin to think this party may be notable... but not in the way that its adherents seem to think it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, alf laylah wa laylah, but I think that is is probably Neothink that is notable, with a mention of the party in an article on the movement behind it. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organization run by a cult which may or may not be notable (that would be a different article; only "keeps" here are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:UPANDCOMING arguments by single-purpose accounts who clearly know nothing about Wikipedian standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 25 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) 03:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legendz[edit]

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

No claim of encyclopedic notability is presented. See WP:PRODUCT. No reliable sources are cited. The two that have been recently added appear to be press releases in a publication closely associated with the anime genre and industry. See WP:RS and WP:V. This article appears to rely heavily on original research which is not admissible on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. A Google search failed to yield any RS sources on the first ten pages of hits. PROD was removed without comment. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While this page has many flaws, I expect that addressing them in quick order be fair and that posting it up for AFD while it is being reorganized and altered is borderline bad-faith. You have a fair media franchise with international releases with manga and anime and you base your issue of N on a Google search in another language - that's exercising a limited amount of care if you ask me. Anyways... enough wasting time - this article needs a great deal of restructuring and clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Chris. No indication was made that any effort was underway at a major reorganization. At least one of the maintenance tags has been up for years. The PROD was removed without comment. A simple "we are working on fixing it up" would have worked. Also there are tags for articles undergoing major work. As for sources it is well established that the burden for sourcing lies with those editors creating articles and adding material to them. Reviewing editors are not expected to search for sources in languages they cannot read. I made a good faith search plowing through the first ten pages of hits on Google. If I failed your apparent expectations due to my inability to read Mandarin, I apologize, though I think I met the standards of BEFORE. The bottom line though is that this article has been around since the middle of the last decade and though hundreds of edits are recorded, not one editor could be bothered to add a source until 24 hours ago. Under the circumstances I think accusing me of bad faith might perhaps be a bit of an overreach. In any event, as you have indicated that there is now an effort underway to get the article up to snuff, be assured that if a viable claim to WP:N that is backed by reliable sources is established, I will happily withdraw the AfD nom. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This says a lot about your competence in the matter: "Reviewing editors are not expected to search for sources in languages they cannot read. ... If I failed your apparent expectations due to my inability to read Mandarin" - (emphasis mine) First, it is Japanese - as indicated on the page, but did you really care about this page to read it? I think not. Secondly, its a large media franchise with almost no English exposure - the four volumes from Viz must have lapsed on licensing or something because Viz doesn't even produce or sell them, let alone list them on their website anymore. Though its had a full and proper Italian and Spanish release and it got picked up for the Phillipines and had a Tagalog dub done - and also in Indonesia. Angelo-notability need not apply, but the work as a whole is actually made by some big names and a page covering it need not be extreme, but at least know what you are talking about when you AFD something that gets blasted on the A&M main page - please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a large media franchise, including several video games that would be individually notable, let alone as part of a wider franchise. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, could you pull up the details of the video games? My archive of Japanese game mags is preciously small, but I did manage to gather up the dates for all the releases of the media and begin to collate everything. I still need to check a few more sources - all books - but already they page is looking much better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think WP:PRODUCT is in any way relevant to this article, and am not sure why the nominator thinks it would be. Things like TV series are clearly not the sort of "product" that WP:PRODUCT is talking about, and a multimedia franchise with various parts created by different companies clearly shouldn't be merged to the page of one company. Calathan (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair point. I probably should have confined it to WP:N. Clearly a significant effort is underway to get the article up to snuff. I will check back a little later when I have sometime and see where things are. But my guess is that I will withdraw the nom if RS sources have been added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even under N... the fact this franchise has a manga in a major publication, major anime production, games for the PlayStation 2 and Nintendo Game Boy Advance (2 with an absolutely over-the-top special accessory system) really merits an article. Notability is on whether or not you can write an article on a subject and WP:NRVE says that sources only need to be presumed to exist. The language barrier aside, this is far from obscure, just a decade old. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD Nom per WP:SK section 1. Massive improvements have been made to the article removing all concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 20 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. WP:CSD#G3 -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.O.D Boyz[edit]

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

Looking at this gang, this article looks extremely thought out. Everything supposedly looks legitimate. But the only problem, however, is that this gang does not exist. The picture of the gang member in the article, doesn't exist. The references this article cites do not mention the "C.O.D Boyz". The first reference and the fourth are generic gang information. The second and third references are dead links. The fifth is a parked domain. The sixth reference is a medical handbook. None of these mention this local gang in Connecticut. 2 out of 3 of the sections only refer to the Bloods gang. The first section, covers mostly the Bloods, mentioning "C.O.D Boyz" in a minor way. In fact, the lead in section states that they are "widely known for [affiliating] with the Bloods." Definitely not notable, not verifiable, and overall, not covering the subject it is supposed to cover. 123chess456 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contributor took the Bloods article and pasted the COD stuff on top of it. The references don't reference COD Boyz. Vanity article, probable hoax. Nomming for speedy-delete instead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 20 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. L Faraone 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish flag[edit]

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

This is not a real flag used by any organization or movement, and has no assertion of notability. The flag was designed and uploaded by a Wikipedian in 2012, and more power to him if he wants to start a Yiddish flag, but the encyclopedia is not the place for that. Pharos (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with all the preceding points. An article on the history of efforts to establish a Yiddish flag might be worthwhile but the present article doesn't even demonstrate that there have been any serious such initiatives. Harnessing the Wikipedia to bolster an individual attempt is clearly inappropriate. --Futhark|Talk 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This definitely falls into the "something made up" department. The only book reference is metaphorical; on-line references talk about the 1908 story mentioned in the article which is about a parody flag having no real connection to the ostensible subject. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have some real-world existence, to judge from File:Yiddish flag.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the designer of the flag having photographed it in locations selected to suggest some form of further acceptance, what such evidence is there? --Futhark|Talk 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The cited sources do not reference this flag. GabrielF (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice that the Jewish symbolism article itself is in a pretty poor state, among many improvements there are genuine symbols of Yiddish culture that could be discussed there.--Pharos (talk) 04:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Africa[edit]

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

Three sentence article about a non-notable MMA organization and one of those is about the death of a fighter (that's WP:ONEEVENT). Most of the sources are about TV ratings--not what I'd call significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are reliable and notable sources that assert notability and it according to sources the most viewed sport in South Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have independent sources for that claim? I know South Africa has hosted the world cups for rugby, cricket, and soccer and I don't believe MMA outdrew those events. According to FIFA even the Confederations Cup drew an average of 6 million South Africa viewers, compared to a record high of 1.8 million for EFC.Mdtemp (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous article on this organization was deleted via AfD and I'm still not seeing notability, except that the viewing audiences have apparently increased. Right now I have to agree with Mdtemp that the sources aren't there to show notability, but I'd like to give the author a chance to improve this article so I'm withholding my vote for the time being. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Agree with previous comments about coverage, but it's close. Wouldn't be a disaster if it were kept.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:51, 26 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) Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Khattree[edit]

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

Does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. Article is autobiographical and was originally created by User:Khattree (user also frequently contributed to the article), and all but one reference is from the Oakland University website, and such referencing could be fulfilled by almost any professor at almost any university. Some edits also from Oakland University IP addresses. W IKIPEE DIO 15:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Subject's h-index is not quite up to the usual standards, but the books with 428 and 280 citations are probably enough to meet WP:PROF. Nom does not provide any valid deletion criteria. -- 101.117.9.24 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the journal he edits (J. Stat. Appl.) is sufficiently well-established for WP:PROF#C8, but his selection as fellow of the ASA should be enough for #C3. The ASA's guidelines say they only select 1/3 of 1% of their membership as fellows per year, which I think should be selective enough, and ASA is certainly a major scholarly society. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h-index of 14 passes WP:Prof#C1 for mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. >200 citations in mostly single or 2-author papers and mostly in math/stats journals. Agricola44 (talk) 23:09, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venexian Monotype[edit]

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

The valid proposed deletion and other tags were removed by a newbie. The creator previously removed a speedy deletion tag. I added tags, and prodded it, in the vain hope that seven days' time would be enough to rescue this unsourced and orphan stub. The material is essentially unverifiable, spam, and/or original research. There may be Italian sources, but I could not find a single source in English Google. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither in the article nor anywhere else is there any evidence of notability. I can find no mention anywhere at all, apart from this Wikipedia article, of "Venexian Monotype". The first version of the article gave a link to a YouTube video on "Monotipo Venexiano", and a Google search for that expression produced only that YouTube video, and nothing else. I did think it might be a spelling error for "Venetian Monotype", but searching for that revealed that the expression does exist, but it is totally unrelated to the subject of the article. The subject clearly comes nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. (It may even be a hoax. The article says that the process was invented by Roman Tcherpak. Roman Tcherpak is a not particularly notable photographer, who has gone to some trouble to get publicity for himself on his own web site, a Facebook account, promotional websites, etc, and yet on none of them, as far as I can see, does he mention this process he has supposedly invented. Also, the reliability of the Wikipedia article does not seem very high, as it says that Roman Tcherpak is Israeli, whereas his own account is that he is Ukrainian.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had the same search experience as JamesBWatson. No coverage found in anything resembling a reliable independent source. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Really little-known terms of font/printing method. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:55, 23 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. Since there are stated to be no reliable sources for an election in Delhi in 2014 this clearly can't stay under any policy. If anyone thinks they can find a target for any sourced material I'd be prepared to discuss a smerge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedic topic. The last elected assembly has not yet been dissolved and there is no use of making speculations on wikipedia. Rahul (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is only opinion of an editor that elections 'may' be held in 2014 not backed by any reference.The current assembly's life is up to December 2018. The house constituted in December 2013 has not yet been dissolved. It has only been suspended with the governor keeping the option of exploring the possibility of forming the government open. Therefore this is pure speculation to state that the next assembly election may be held in 2014. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without knowing facts Article is nominated for deletion. But making speculations comment by User:The Rahul Jain !!!!, is totally baseless. If we read constitution of India, there are maximum chances of Delhi election this year only. GKCH (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but under a different article title. The problem here is the title of the article. As Rahul and Shyamsunder rightly point out, a "Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014" is speculation. Section 5 of The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 prescribes five year terms for the assembly... "unless sooner dissolved". The Assemblies so far have followed this. I've moved the article to what in my opinion is a better name. (Please feel free to revert this or disagree in any other way.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo this move and wait until afd discussion is over. ThanksShyamsunder (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a backwards step. We've identified the problem, now lets look for a solution. I'm quite happy to consider this a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and close it now as an overwhelming WP:SNOW decision to delete "Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2014" as a redirect to President's rule of Delhi, 2014. I'm afraid to say I see very little merit in the sole dissent to that here. (Some people might consider President's rule of Delhi, 2014 to be WP:NOTNEWS. I certainly don't think so.) How about that for an outcome? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move While it is probably premature to have an article on an out-of-cycle election that might or might not take place, Delhi is a sufficiently major city that Wikipedia should be covering local political events that attract sustained national media coverage. So even if it was not entirely advisable to move the article to President's rule of Delhi, 2014 in the middle of an AfD, the article is sufficiently sourced, and on-topic relative to this title, to be kept as a standalone article - though, once events have developed further one way or another, it may turn out to be sensible to merge it as one section of a larger article on the entire course of events. PWilkinson (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation based page, no notability right now. If BJP forms government in Delhi then this page is irrelevant. If election announced after 5-6 months (when President's Rule end), then this page should be create again.--Prateek Malviya^Talk 09:31, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miremont[edit]

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

After spending some time pruning away puffery and unsubstantiated claims about this article subject, I don't believe we're left with enough non-primary reliable sources establishing notability for this visual artist, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent deletion of several aspects of the article while leaving comments like "bullshit", "logrolling" along with the peacock tag had me thinking Shawn in Montreal's deletions were questionable. I've since looked at Shawn's page and see that he is a serious editor. My mistake. My presumptions were why I removed his peacock tag, which led to his creating this page deleting discussion. (I did not mean to step on your toes Shawn, but I hope you can understand how leaving comments like "bullshit" could led others to question your deletions). Anyways, I find the subject's work with other notables and the references from known institutions, galleries and publications to show the page's merit (and perhaps even the return of some of the prior substantiated content that was deleted). That's just my view. Nynewart (talk) 11:06 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nynewart (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you seem to be making an insinuation of WP:POINT here, which I strongly object to. I did not bring this to Afd because you removed the peacock tag, I did do because when started to look at the references, didn't seem to be any substance to these claims of notability, some of which were absurd (I remind you that you had him as a notable American philosopher). Can you link to any WP:RS, deleted or otherwise, that establish these claims? And keep in mind that a WP:PRIMARY ref from a gallery showing his work, or a non-independent YouTube link, or a porn industry news site (in this case: see later), or Mamie van Doren's quote about how great he is, having been included in his picture book (logrolling) -- none of those are reliable independent sources for these claims. The porn industry news site is a reliable for the adult industry, but not the way it was being used by you here. As for the Revolutionart link, I'd like to know what's there but it's a massive zip file, which I do not intend to download. Is there any way you can link to Revolutionart via a standard weblink? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, Shawn in Montreal. That's why I said, "I did not mean to step on your toes". Like I mentioned above, I made my assumptions, based on your uses of words like "bullshit" in your deletion notes. This was before I research and saw you were a serious editor. I hope you can understand this. I never undid any of your deletions on the subject's page. On this deletion page here, which you created, I merely articulated the timeline of your actions and mine. I thought I apologized above. If not, please accept mine, to you, now. It is sincere.

About the philosophy notability, you are absolutely correct. I created this page back after the subject lectured in my graduate class on Aesthetics at NYU. It was my assumption that he was notable in that field (philosophy) based on his being a guest lecturer and the work on his site. That was my mistake and you are correct. I will research for WP:RS when I have time. I did not debate this anywhere nor undo any of your deletions.

To address the logic behind my questioning the "logrolling", well, that was tied up in your use of above mentioned language like "bullshit", and also becasue you mentioned that the subject had a "book" or "picture book" used as compensation. I am not sure if he has published a book with Mamie van Doren in it. If he has, then you could be absolutely right and you know more about him than I do. A book was not mentioned in the article, nor on her cited page, though. For my part, I was merely adding content to the "photography section" I created and thought that a direct, sourced comment about his work, made by a historically notable model, was relevant. I didn't see any place, or book, where he has mentioned her in compensation. Can you please cite it in the "references section" if you have, becasue that would be useful as a [[WP:RS] for further development of the subject's page. Nynewart (talk) 12:59 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're unaware that you added the content on the book and the praise from van Doren. I don't have to add anything to show that "he mentioned her in compensation" -- she was in the book. I have no objection to you adding content on the book, and van Doren is a notable figure who merits mention. But the way it was added, giving the impression that her high praise for the article subject is independent, and failing to mention the connection between the two, is part of a pattern throughout the article, of using unreliable, non-independent and often primary sources to create an impression of notability, one that I maintain is not objectively supported. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, the link you posted above shows where I divided the film section from the photography section for clarity. I felt this was necessary to properly expand this page and divides genres of work. I don't see a reference to a "book" by me anywhere. If there is, it should be removed or you should add the book in the references.

You also posted on the page for this subject's film, The Resurrection of Beauty, (which you also want to delete), that that film is an "adaptation of photo book by Miremont".

We can't find this "book" you keep referring to. Perhaps you are mean the title of a photography exhibit or an essay Miremont wrote on Aesthetics ? Either way, there is no connection to Mamie Van Doren and a "book" or "film". I have seen the film, which you say is based on a photo book, and Mamie van Doren is not in the film,(see its credits) nor is she mentioned in the essay or was there a photo of her in that exhibit (from what I can see from the documentary video of it). Mamie van Doren has got to be in her 80's by now and was active in the 50s and 60s. Her comment about the subject's work seems to be based on a genuine appreciation for it and I don;t see his commenting on or promoting her anywhere. The fact that she is a historically noted model makes this of interest anyone interested in Miremont's genre of photography. This is why I included it when I separated the film and photography sections as they should be.

Again, all of this is said while also saying that I don't mind you deleting the Van Doren quote if, unlike myself, you don't find it to be informative or substantiated. We can disagree. I only ask that you base that on a real reason and not on some misreading of things where you think a "photo book" exists that she is not in, and from which a film was not based. Nynewart (talk) 4:28 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again, your comments here leave me with the impression that you don't actually understand the basis for key guidelines like WP:N or WP:RS. I'm not going to waste my time debating these points with you. The fact remains, unless you or someone can produce multiple reliable sources independent of the subject establishing notability, then this article is very likely going to be deleted. Period. So expend your efforts in that area, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with most of what Shawn in Montreal has written here. While routine gallery publicity about exhibitions of the artist's work don't generally help to show notability, evidence that the artist has been exhibited or collected by notable museums (or maybe by very important galleries) does provide evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. But I haven't found any concrete evidence of that here. The article mentions a 60-foot graffiti at MOCA in Los Angeles but if I understand correctly this was an unauthorized piece of tagging rather than a part of an exhibit there, and I haven't found any mention of this work at moca.org or in any source independent of Miremont. If there's any real evidence of his work being collected by important institutions, or of the "significant critical attention" also mentioned in WP:CREATIVE, now is the time to produce it. Miremont's video of Soundgarden's "Flower" was made in 1988, and for someone who has been around that long, and whose work includes such potentially popular subject matter as rock videos and topless pinup girls, I would have expected to find more coverage than we are finding. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. Arxiloxos made a great suggestion on another page in question about doing a merge and I agree that makes the most sense. Any content like the graffiti and some of the prior, now deleted content, were taken verbatim from interviews in the related references. I did not editorialize/poof that content. I took it verbatim from the interview or article. When looking to establish an "early life" section, it seemed like quotes from the subject's own mouth in an interview would be acceptable as even in a book it usually comes from a 1st person source like that via a writer's interview. But I get it :) This was one of my first, if not the first page, I made and a notability phase came up then, which it passed. I will endeavor to combine the two pages in question next week. Looking online just now, I see there are a few things in Billboard about his directing I can add as well. As I get time, I will look deeper into publications that haven't been archived online yet. --Nynewart (talk) (UTC)
A misrepresentation. What he actually said was "delete or merge," depending upon whether the target article gets deleted. If it is decided at Afd to delete both articles, you will have nothing to merge to. I don't know what you mean when you say the article passed it's "notability phase," in fact, I'm not completely satisfied you have been entirely forthcoming about your association with Miremont, but that is not the issue here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, an anon IP came along in back in 2008 removed the notability tag and some content with what appeared to have possibly been WP:RS. There's no way to tell what was there - the links are broken. But you may visit the page as it existed then and see for yourself. I've seen nothing that sways me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one's tried to do any swaying becasue no new editing has been done yet. I will for sure research the dead link though. I think there are a couple dead ones on there in fact. Whatever does not belong will be deleted for sure. Until then, I would greatly appreciate it if we can slow down on the language, the baiting and the insinuations. Civil would be nice. Let's work on improving the page. I won't be able to get to it till next week, if then. Nynewart (talk) EST 9:23PM — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the other, related film page that Shawn nominated for deletion we are discussing above. The Resurrection of Beauty. If anyone else has solid info on this film they can add, or are savvy with merging articles, please have at it. I know there were screenings in NY and Amsterdam, I don't know of others. Keep in mind there is some "artistic topless imagery" in this film, so don't research it, if that offends you or you are under 17. If it is merged, I think it can be brought down to a line or small paragraph. Nynewart (talk) EST 9:41PM — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the Afd tag while the discussion is underway to effect a merge, I'll revert it and issue you a vandalism warning. Fair notice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I'm not going to take the bait of you insinuating my guilt of "Precrime". I will just ask again that you assume good faith, as I have with with you. Let's focus just on the page. To that end, I've done an edit detailed below:

(1) has everything on the page is now directly referenced from these reliable, published sources: Sundance Institute, Rolling Stone Magazine, Billboard Magazine, Revolutionart, Filmmaker (magazine), MTV.com, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety (magazine), and the art gallery's site (for the solo photo exhibit in Amsterdam), and the exhibitor's announcement (for the film screening in Amsterdam). Both of these are notable institutions, established for several years.

(2) A dead link from Lucretia Magazine, which has folded since it was published in 2010, has been taken out of the references.

(3) The "Y-Not Europe" article about the photo exhibit and film screening that Shawn objected to being a reference has been taken out of the citations.

(4) The "contents box" and "partial filmography". The filmography was incomplete anyway as I believe he's directed over a dozen music videos that weren't on there anyways. I don't have time at the moment to research and site all of that, so I deleted it rather than leave in incomplete.

(5) Other possible sources of information have been put into an "Additional Information" section at the botom of the article. This section also has the subject's website, sites like IMDB, additional Magazine articles & reference media. None of these materials are referenced in the article, but they may be useful to other editors in future work on the page. (eg: finding announcements of new work on the subject's site)

For other editors: there are additional reliable, published sources in: Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Rolling stone that can be developed if you have time and access to their archives.

In conclusion, I contend that this page now adheres strictly to wiki standards. If you disagree, please be specific and make sure you aren't asking more of this page than you do the pages we can see you contributing to yourself. Nynewart (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a claim that there was a "full page article on Miremont" in Filmmaker, also described as "production update column." However, there seems to be no way of accessing "winter issue, 1996" to confirm what in fact it is (?). A "production note" in Billboard Magazine could also be trivial coverage. Also, I ask again if there is anyway you can link to Revolutionart as anything other than a zip file. I have no intention of downloading this, as this is my sole computer and I don't know what the file contains. (WP:LINKSTOAVOID #3). Is there any way you can copy paste salient contents of Revolutionart onto, say, the talk page of this Afd? Also, do you stand by your claim that there are "additional reliable, published sources in... Variety"? Because I just did a search on their site and there is absolutely nothing, "zero results", the site reports, for anyone named Mike Miremont. As of now, per WP:V, I see no verifiable evidence whatsover that would make me consider withdrawing this Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the article creator's additional info on the AfD talk page, I felt ok with downloading the 35 meg file. It's a PDF of Revolutionart, and I would accept the article-interview as one reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being specific, Shawn. I will address all of your concerns in the order you gave them:

(1) Filmmaker Magazine back issues are available at most large libraries. Not all magazines or industry journals have their "pre-information age" archives fully online. This was a 1996 article and I see most filmmaker magazine refs on wiki being formatted like THIS 2008 reference which is 12 years newer than the one I made (I found it when searched Glucksman's name - she wrote both articles). I have been a subscriber of this mag since '94 and can tell you first hand that it is mostly about The White Ocean. It is too long for me to type out and I dont have a scanner at the moment, But I dont bring up the production of that fiolm in the article myself anyways.

I only used the filmmaker magazine ref to support (a) Miremont's education info to that point and (b) the Soundgarden video. Both the education and soundgarden claims are supported in other refs (eg: the soundgarden link in "addition information" section). Given that these uncontroversial claims are supported by Revolutionart and other sources, the filmmaker mag citation is there just as a back up and to help other editors who may want to add content at some point about the white ocean film.

(2) The "production note" in Billboard Magazine is used merely to support the assertion that "Miremont has directed numerous music videos". I posted 3 such refs to support that, but could have posted many more. He has directed numerous music videos. Posting more in line refs would make the article unreadable and is prohibited by wiki. Further, there are many links supporting the simple claim that he "has directed several videos" in the "additional material" section. The ref you are singling out can be found online [Here] with a simple google search. Yes, it is a small notice, but the claim is merely that he has directed music videos and this one happens to be for Lazlo Bane. BTW, this video was for SONY Music and according to the band's website, the clip was one of the top 10 videos on mtv2 in 1997. I personally dont think it is that good. But bottom line, it is an uncontroversial claim that he has "directed numerous music videos" and that is one of 3 ref supporting that; and here are many more in the addition info section.

(3) As you know, I have cut and pasted the revolutionart article text on the TALK page here as requested. That site has been providing tens of thousands of monthly downloads since 2006 without malware (to my knowledge). It is a well respected international, Alternative Art Journal. You will see that much of the original content you deleted from the page without checking assuming the good faith of the reference came directly from this article. It was not original research of fluff added by me, as I think you believed. Anyway, I am glad we are on the same page. BTW, there is a small feature on Canadian filmmaker Floria Sigismondi in one of the issues. Regarding the Revoutionart ref, is there anything there you would add back into this article now?

(4) I do stand by the assertion about the hollywood reporter and variety being able to provide more content; especially in their early 90s archives about the White Ocean project. Even though these journals don't cover experimental filmmakers, they DO cover all sundance lab projects as there are only 6-9 directing fellows chosen per year. I just wanted other editors to know that there is more content out there if they want to find it. Not everything useable is online. Some is in books or older journals. The sundance institute's site was enough for the simple claims I made and they are supported by the other references throughout as well.

Well I think I addressed all your concerns.

Are we in consensus now?

Can some of the info from the Revolutionart ref put back in? (If so, would you consider doing it to avoid debate?)

SIDE NOTE Shawn, your comments got me interested, so I looked at your contribution history again. I saw the edits you did yesterday at the Canadian animator, Cordell Barker's page. I noticed you've been the single biggest editor of his page for the last 7 years. He's a filmmaker whose films I really enjoy. I found some things I wanted to bring to your attention but didn't know how to do so while we were butting heads on this page. And I didn't want to do the fixes myself because that could easily be misinterpreted. So let me just pass on these notes in good faith, since I know you are into that page. (1) I remember seeing a dead link, (2) the majority of the refs come from NFB webpages. They are his employer, so this may give the raise to impartiality claims. I know there have got to be other refs out there. Most easy to fix is that you use IMDB as the only ref to support that he has won 2 short film animation oscars. Beyond us not being able to use IMDB on wiki, its further a problem when you follow the link to IMDB and there is mention of the oscars to be found. Here is my olive branch... you can easily fix that using the variety article which mentions the oscars and is a reliable source. Again, I would have fixed this for you, but I don't want to appear to step on your toes.

Maybe you can return the favor by telling me what can be used from the Revolutionart article without controversy. Best, Nynewart (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Feel free to improve any article I've worked on, however you like. As for Revolutionart, I'll gladly restore anything from that article that I've cut, if this is kept. Keep in mind: that's WP:ONESOURCE, so far. And mere production listings are not significant coverage, of the kind we require. So, imo, they're sufficient to WP:V his credits, but they're not the kind of thing that will build a case for notability. For that, more feature pieces like the one in Revolutionart would. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can restore the info without deleting new content (meaning not a simple revert) please do. If you don't want to do that, just let me know if anything in that article is controversial to you and I will avoid it. I think the other magazine articles/interviews listed in the "additional information" section can be used to make this more than one source if I can find them archived or you will accept them being republished on the author's website when the magazine folded.

And just so I understand, are you are saying all resources must be readable online? I did not know that as I see all over the site there being book/mag references you cant read online. Is it a matter of the page #? I can certainly add that. If not can you just direct me to the wiki page detailing this so I can do it right the 1st time?

I will fix the IMDB issue for you and leave the rest to other editors. Nynewart (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not into improving this article as it stands now, as I'm still not persuaded that he's currently notable, and the article, retained. But certainly, I'm satisfied that neutrally worded statements about him and his work can be (re)added from the Revolutionart feature interview, if you wish. And no: references do not have to be online. It's just the only way that I'd personally be satisfied that these claimed references actually are significant -- not mere production listings (see WP:ITEXISTS. Now, other editors well may accept your claims for these references and decide the article should be kept. We work on WP:CONSENSUS: you'll have to see what others say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

& the article / & the article /

Delete Neither he nor the principle work in any of its manifestations seems to have sufficient sources for notability. Not concerned with the question of who did what, just evaluating the sources and the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 27 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. L Faraone 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Jeggo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the coverage of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS --SuperJew (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 21 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) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:51, 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. WP:CSD#G3 -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Incubus episodes[edit]

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

Seems to be a pretty clear hoax. All the external links for references point to the same host, which redirects me to spamvertisements, and some have "access times" in the future. Article creator has removed the {{db-hoax}} twice, and I'd rather not revert again. Storkk (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Even ignoring the bad links the text verges on gibberish. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 20 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. L Faraone 01:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Noubissie[edit]

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

Reason Nokios (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a professional football player, no carreers, no club. It’s a page for an amateur on Wikipedia, this is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Futhermore, this article is an orphan, so it’s not relevant for the community

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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 20 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) 14:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:50, 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 merge to James Giles (philosopher). L Faraone 01:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerability and care theory of love[edit]

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

Non-notable theory of a not particularly notable philosopher; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles' theory of sexual desire. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Giles. As with the article on his theory of sexual desire, this theory is closely linked with Giles (to say the least), and it would make sense to discuss both this and his theory of sexual desire together, in the context of his wider philosophy. There are some external references even if the article currently lacks any inline citations. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with James Giles (philosopher), agree with rationale by nominator and Colapeninsula, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Forest Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, group seems to have folded. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I nominated the page originally as the body in question is of questionable notability as well as being not well-defined, rather a loose affiliation of industry representatives. I'd suggest, that the article should simple redirect to Workflow_Management_Coalition as it seems to be a precursor group to this industry body. U2fanboi (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The closest to a usable source I could find was a 1995 mention in Computerworld. That's just not enough. Msnicki (talk) 14:28, 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 procedural close - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Forest Group (2nd nomination) instead. Thanks. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 10:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Forest Group[edit]

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

Group no longer seems to be active. The references date from the 1990s. Its notability, even from that time, is questionable. The group just seems to have been a loose affiliation of people working in similar industries, and not any sort of formal group. U2fanboi (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is this not properly transcluded? Bearian (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, I listed it on March 10, I thought I had gone through the process correctly. U2fanboi (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll attempt to add it again.U2fanboi (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody help on this - I added it to today's list but the item title is not showing up.U2fanboi (talk) 09:47, 20 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. This is the third AfD (see here and here) for this article (or its equivalent) in less than a week. Our deletion policy states that a "reasonable amount of time" should pass between deletion nominations, and 4 days is far from reasonable. There is an RfC in progress at the Republic of Crimea talk page if anyone wishes to weigh in on the fate of this article. This AfD is subverting that process. -- Atama頭 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea (country)[edit]

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

Textbook WP:CFORK. The very lead of the article says it all, emphasis mine: "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics." The whole article is either copied over or already covered from Crimea, Republic of Crimea and 2014 Crimean referendum. This is the meta:Separatism taken at the extreme. No such user (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Historically interesting and important article. LordFixit (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a good faith creation but this is just a technical byproduct of the (disputed) process of transferring from one country to another. These oddities have happened all the time throughout history and aren't notable in and of themselves. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This country still exists, it has not yet been annexed by russia as the treaty has not been ratified by the russian duma yet. Your statement that the country existed for little more than a day is blatently false.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the Ukrainian view, the country does not exist as a matter of law. According to the Russian view — as declared by Vladimir Putin — the annexation was effective as soon as he and the Crimean/Sevastopolitan (is that the right adjective form?) leaders signed the accession treaty. In neither of these views did the allegedly independent state exist for more than a day. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. There is no reason to keep it as a separate article. (I would have agreed with "delete" but for the fact that we had a discussion previously that ended up in "keep".) --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell knows which article was actually kept at AfD. This whole Crimea business ended up as a bloody mess, with every involved Wikipedian having their own idea how to organize articles. In particular, this (for a suitable interpretation of "this") was moved by @Kudzu1: [71] from "Republic of Crimea" to "Republic of Crimea (country)" on 18 March and immediately [72] restored some version on the old location, in effect creating a copy/paste move. No such user (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Action We alright have an RFC at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea#Proposal_to_merge_article_titled_.22Republic_of_Crimea_.28country.29.22_into_this_article, this AFD is redundant to that RFC. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above - ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Any country has historical significance regardless for how long it existed. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as above. Trackteur (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason as we have all of the other short lived states here: List of shortest-lived sovereign states, many of which were just temporary byproducts of political technicalities. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, same as above. It is real sovereing state, not another Sealand. mrl586 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The proclaimed entity declared to be sovereign independent state. The article "Republic of Crimea" is about a de facto Russian sub-national autonomous region which is a completely entity to this article. Tthe Proclaimed Independent Sovereign State and the de facto Autonomous Russian Republic are two different entities which have existed at two different points in history, hence why there should be two different articles for two different entities which have existed at two different periods of time. Also this subject is more than notable enough to warrant an article of it's own. IJA (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real, historical, more or less independent nation, even if it only existed for one single day. JIP | Talk 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A real independent country, what's not to like 130.126.255.231 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. There is no reason for having two articles on the same entity. Whether it is an independent nation or a constituent part of the Russian Federation or a dissenting part of Ukraine, it is one place, there is one government using this name, and we only need one article. At present the two articles lead to divergent explanations of the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per excellent argument by John Pack Lambert. We simply don't need content forks because some people fail to recognize a single place as a singleton entity despite name and POV about its political status. The Russian Federation is conquering a large portion of a neighboring sovereign state by force, and people here are fantasizing some nonsense about an independent state existing for one day. This is really pathetic. jni ^(delete)_{…just not interested} 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per above arguments by John Pack Lambert. We do not need more content forks. This "state" was only declared for the purposes of accession to Russia as the Republic of Crimea, and hence can be easily dealt with in that article. What's more, the present title of this article is ridiculous for the sake of disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid content forks. — Petr Matas 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sovereign state that managed to get recognition in one day. We have plenty of articles on short-lived former states; this one should stay. [Soffredo] 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Crimean Regional Government shows why these areticles should be merged. There we have a join article on both a Crimean regime that existed under German auspices and one n a Crimean regime that existed under Anglo-Frnaco-American auspices. That is a much more radicalchange all put in one than anything we are talking about here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no distinction between Republic of Crimea and this article since the annexation vote by Russia was nearly automatic. Any information from this article could be discussed in other articles.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, we already have the RFC, which predates this AFD, who's purpose is to discuss weather or not to merge this. If you think this should or shouldn't be merged take it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the content is duplicate of Republic of Crimea. No need to keep this fork Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is helpful to readers to keep this separate from the Ukrainian entity that preceded it and the Russian entity which succeeded it. St Anselm (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the one who created this article, I'm amused by the characterization of this as a "content fork", considering my personal views on Ukraine and Russia. If my vote counts, I want to keep this because I think it's historically significant and Wikipedia has catalogued many other short-lived and pseudo-states -- and this fits into the category. I'm open to the idea of narrowly tailoring the content of this article, as there's plenty of general Crimea information between the other three articles out there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AfD ended only 4 days ago at least a week should go by before another deletion discussion takes place. As for the keep, this article passes WP:GNG has the widespread coverage and should stay. There have been lots of short lived republics in history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Republic of Crimea. This page tells: "The country was established for a little more than a day as a result of the 2014 Crimean referendum, before it was joined to Russia as one of its republics.". However, 2014 Crimean referendum did not even include a question/option to establish independent state: Choice 1: Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation? and Choice 2: Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine? This POV fork is ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Truther2012 says, "Any country has historical significance regardless for how long it existed." I suppose an argument for deletion could be made if a hypothetical country were to fail WP:GNG requirements, but that isn't the case here.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For a country to have a historical significance, it must first exist in first place. Crimea is current a division of Ukraine. Only Russia and maybe some of its puppet states (and certain slovophile wikipedia editors) recognize this as an sovereign state. This is just a pure POV-fork. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 08:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized or not, it existed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it did not exist as an independent state per vast majority of sources. 16:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Unilaterally declared (though mostly unrecognised) sovereign state. Historically significant as part of Ukraine's de facto loss of Crimea. Notably, the claimed country is not coterminous with the subsequent de facto republic of the Russian Federation, nor the internationally recognised autonomous republic of Ukraine. Other short-lived states have articles. Similar historical entities also have articles, as a claim of sovereignty, when matching the de facto situation, is significant. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Crimea. Although the territorial dispute is still unresolved, it is without question that these two articles are covering the same subject. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we are to keep Wikipedia consistent and follow the examples of:

Republic of Galicia (lasted a few hours)
Carpatho-Ukraine (likely less than 1 day)
Russian Democratic Federative Republic (a few hours at most)

- Anonimski (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between this one and those that you've listed. This one remains fundamentally intact as it entered into a federation. Those states ceased to exist. There is no reason to separate the history of the two, as they are fundamentally the same entity doing the same thing, even if Sebastopol was later spit off. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For example, the application of Russian federal law to the territory is a large change in the general characteristics of the administration. Anonimski (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no time for "Crimean law" to develop for the couple of days it was "independent". It is not a large change at all. The main change was moving from Ukrainian to Russian administration. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, the declaration of independence, although mostly unrecognised, was widely reported in the press, therefore it's notable. Secondly, there is no minimum duration for which a country has existed to keep its own article. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can create article Declaration of Crimean independence. However, declaration per se (declared by their parliament occupied by Russian military forces) does not mean it actually existed as an independent state. Most sources, to my knowledge, claim that it never was an independent state. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, as said above, especially what Truther2012 said. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:08, 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 (WP:CSD#G7) by Xoloz (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Limbo[edit]

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

Unverifiable, I couldn't find a single source about this band. Clearly not a notable band. Fram (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas not notable: no recordings, no sources, limbo is about it.TheLongTone (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find coverage for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 16:46, 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. L Faraone 01:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Loconto[edit]

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

I'm not sure why this particular tennis referee is notable as compared to all the others at List of tennis umpires. Consensus is that referees are not usually notable, even at the highest levels. Now if it's deemed that his inventing the first hand held scorecard computer makes him different than all the other non-notable referees, at least that "might" make some sense. Otherwise I can't really see this article as worthwhile to wikipedia. Most of the sources given are about bad behavior from players with Loconto as a peripheral mention because he happened to be the umpire when the players were naughty. I'm cool with it if everyone feels this one particular referee is more special than all the rest of the Gold badge ITF refs, but I want to see discussion that proves it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 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) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography with nothing to show he's different from any other umpire at major events.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loconto invented the handheld computer used by referees [73], [74] and, to actually make an argument that has something to do with deletion policy, has recieved enough coverage to demonstrate notabiilty under WP:BASIC,(se sources in article and above, plus [75].) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about him being a ref were in fringe local papers that I'm sure all referees get coverage in. The handheld referee computer was the one item that I wondered about from the start. However, IF that is enough to warrant his inclusion here, then this article needs to be rewritten with the main emphasis on that particular fact. The periferal info can be on the fact he was also a tennis ref. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that truly enough to show notability? Baseball umpires have had hand held devices for keeping track of balls, strikes, and outs for generations. What is truly new about his invention?204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click) and 204: my own view is that notabilty is not so much a question of "whether it is deserved?" but instead is a proxy for the available sourcing, and to what extent an objective article can be written. This is why WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, our most central notability guidelines, are written the way they are. So while you ask me "is notable?", because of GNG, because of BASIC, I'm going to argue primarily in terms of "is there enough sourcing?" The question of whether specific achievements, such as the handheld, are important, is interesting, it's a fun question to ask "why is someone famous?" But most notability arguments on Wikipedia turn on the "is someone famous?" rather than some question of whether they deserve that mark.

But I do think there is promotional wording and other issues in the article. (e.g. "unbelieveable match") Rewrite away.

In terms of what I would say if I were writing the article from scratch? I have no particular issue, for example, with the inclusion of the Stahl award, which appears to hit a "signficant" bar even though I don't think it's "notable" all by itself. I don't think the desciption of the award is neutral, though. All or almost all of the interactions with individual players, which are a lot of what comes up when you search on Loconto, are pretty negligible individually, so I can imagine summarizing and so forth, but I wouldn't focus too much on that. I'm sure you get my meaning. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. Still, from the "officiating" standpoint and the sources given, I would say this person does not meet gng. But, famous for an invention is in the eye of the beholder. I would hazard to guess that there are persons on wikipedia that have invented far more frivolous items and have been deemed notable because of those inventions. Your insight is usually pretty good on these things so I might bow to notability based on that invention. However, this article needs to read that way too, including the lead. It should be something like "Dana Loconto (Born March 7, 1949 in Gadsden, Alabama) invented the first hand held scorecard computer for tennis umpires." That's why he's notable so that should hit us right up front. We can then also include the fact he was a professional chair umpire and official, but those should be secondary to his invention. I should point out too that this article originated from Dana Loconto himself. He's a financial adviser and no doubt wants to make sure he can put this article on his resume as seen on his wordpress blog Dana needs new clients. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 10 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing he might be notable for is his invention, in which case the article needs a complete rewrite. However, he doesn't even mention it in his own resume which makes me believe it's not a notable invention and I didn't find the invention in any article that isn't about him.Mdtemp (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also tried finding any kind of extensive sourcing for this "amazing invention." It pretty much doesn't exist so we won't be able to write about it in any detail except for the fact that Loconto invented it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per project consensus individual referees are not notable. Per above the 'invention' does not appear to be notable either.--Wolbo (talk) 14:45, 26 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. No prejudice for or against a merger or redirect — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Jay[edit]

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

This article is about a mascot that existed for a single game 2 years ago to mark the 100 year anniversary of the design of the original Jayhawk. It also at any point was never an official mascot for University of Kansas Athletics. The article is also poorly written with many issues. Rockchalk717 03:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly written, yes. But it can be saved. The history of the mascot goes back to 1912. I'm good with this as a stub and leave the content up to editors.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history is of the original Jayhawk logo (see [76]) But the actual mascot has no history and only existed for one game. That's why it was called Centennial Jay.--Rockchalk717 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Somebody explain to me why the K-State guy wants to keep this and the KU guy doesn't!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mascot appeared at hundreds of events including football homecoming. It was called Centennial Jay because it was based on a hundred year old design. NapalmSunday (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kansas Jayhawks#Mascots -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an official mascot and made several appearances at events. If you think the writing can be improved you should edit it. The 1912 Jayhawk is worthy of inclusion as a topic and should not be deleted. NapalmSunday (talk) 01:55, 18 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject to possible merge to a comprehensive article about all the mascots, either at Kansas Jayhawks#Mascots or more likely, since there may be too much content to fit it all there, at a new spinout article Kansas Jayhawks mascots. It's not clear to me that having three separate articles about the KU mascots is the best way to cover the topic; a merge into one comprehensive article would probably be an improvement. However, the content at issue in this AfD is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no way there should be 3 articles on a school's mascot. They should either be combined into 1 article or combined at Kansas Jayhawks#Mascots. Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response if all three mascots are able to stand on their own notability then all three or thirty-three mascots would be notable and therefore according to WP:N would have their own article. The question is this: "Is Centennial Jay notable?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it doesn't appear that all three are individually notable. There is a lack of significant coverage for Centennial Jay and it appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Therefore, I would vote Merge into Kansas Jayhawks#Mascots. Mdtemp (talk) 23:11, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound in Unix[edit]

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

Mistakenly placed at MfD. Listing here. Procedural listing only. I am officially Neutral StarM 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the MfD: I agree that this is little more than a search phrase and that we'd be wrong to try to extrapolate it out into an article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge with sound (disambiguation) - it seems reasonable to search for sound related to unix. Christian75 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audio and add relevant entries there. Sound is any sound as perceived by the brain (according to Sound, while audio is an electrical or other representation of sound.) Bjelleklang - talk 11:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear what this was meant to be; it looks like an attempt to make a wp:dab page, maybe? In any case, nothing useful here, and no need to leave a redirect behind because this seems like an unlikely search term. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 20 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Nominator per my invalid nom at mfd. "not a dab, or an obvious redirect, possibly useful as a list" Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sound in Unix. Widefox; talk 11:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly doesn't work as a disambiguation page. If the consensus is that there isn't enough substance to make an article, then perhaps merge with List of Linux audio software. The fact that users might search for a phrase does not, by itself, justify creating a page at that title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced/OR software summary. Per R'n'B, a merge to List of Linux audio software might make sense.Dialectric (talk) 23:19, 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. The result is kept, 1 speedy keep vote, plus nominator has withdrawn nomination. I also note that reasons given in this AFD was not very clear. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 04:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qutbi Bohra[edit]

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

This Article is work of fiction. Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have had two No consensus closings within the last three weeks, should we not then give the AfD discussions a rest for a little while (Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion) and deal with the content issues in the article? Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although this sect does not officially exist, the main problem remains the content of the article is completely false / fictional / defamatory. I think the best solution is to rewrite the article starting with a neutral content. For example, from this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qutbi_Bohra&oldid=597098906 --Ftutocdg (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Speedy close. There remains no consensus. I agree with Ftutocdg's suggestion on how to deal with the article, though I am a little puzzled by what is meant as a sect "officially existing". If some people claim they think differently from another group of people in a religious movement, and call themselves by a distinctive name, they've formed a sect. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Reason given for deletion doesn't match any laid by Wikipedia deletion policy. I request nominator to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and few well established community consensus, for now Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: "Withdrawn by nominator" After having discussion with my fellow editors this article is up for rewrite and cleanup.Mufaddalqn (talk) 15:09, 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. Unfortunately, being close isn't the same as meeting the inclusion criteria, I'm going to salt this as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. Original research. Re-post of deleted material. This article has already been deleted three times (here, here, here). Each time, this article has been recreated shortly afterwards. However, the main problem of this article persists: The "favorite betrayal criterion" has never caught on. There are only 4 papers from 3 different authors in Google Scholar (one thesis and three self-published papers that have never been accepted for publication somewhere else). There is not a single hit in Google Books. There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion. Markus Schulze 05:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would a redirect to tactical voting make sense? I did find two books which I added to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Comment, the added books are about voting in general; they don't even mention the favorite betrayal criterion. Markus Schulze 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they do, but I'm only leaving it as a crumb for future editors to look at as the entire article needs to be better sourced. I'm not invested in the article one way or another. I do think it makes sense to have a specific article to send interested readers to who want to learn on the subject. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - the only source I could find and view online was:

Geometric construction of voting methods that protect voters' first choices by Alex Small (Society for Political Methodology, 2010)

The website for said society allows members to upload papers for discussion and consideration - it's not clear if this paper was published in that fashion of by the Society itself. Google results show mentions in a few books, including a couple by Donald G. Saari but the e-books aren't available for me so I can't see whether we're talking about significant coverage or passing mentions. There certainly doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage outside a small handful of academic works. Stalwart111 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep at the least close to meeting the GNG and clearly meets WP:V with no real potential harm for hosting it. Hobit (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markus Schulze--an idea that looks to have never taken off. Also, I'm not seeing that it's any more notable than last time it was deleted (or the times before that, in fact), and such a long and detailed article really needs more than just one paper as a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoplay[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No notable independent sources could be located online, both in English and Dutch, besides press releases, blog posts and forum posts. Article does not assert notability in any significant way; an award by a organization that itself is non-notable is obviously not enough. Zero news results in English and Dutch. Unless further independent reliable sources are found that establish notabilty, this article should be deleted. Richard Ye^talk 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from routine trademark announcements, a Highbeam search turned up an item of local Doncaster press coverage verifying the 2007 award, though linking a firm called Polypipe Sanitary Systems ([77], via Highbeam, subscription required), but without evidence that this is a notable award and further/wider coverage, I don't see enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no claim or evidence of notability.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:22, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sargeant Roger Hunkins[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Fails to establish notability. Item better suited for a genealogy site. reddogsix (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Robert Hastings Hunkins acted as legislator for WI, which is a notable position in WI history. -Kbabej (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the creator of this article, Kbabej has a conflict of interest, so it is not proper for Kbabej to be weighing in here.71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kbabej certainly can and should discuss the article (s)he created here. (or "could" and "should" if they weren't currently blocked). Storkk (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP. Robert H. Hunkins is an "honored veteran pioneer" that served as Commissioner for Waukesha. He is notable for WI history, as Kbabej stated. AndyR112 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AndyR112 is a suspected sock-puppet of Kbabej. See AndyR112's edits. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sargeant Roger Hunkins was very important of the development of Wisconsin politically-thanks-RFD (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County commissioner + tax collector = non-notable politician. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 8 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is about his family (WP:NOTINHERITED). Being a local politician does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politician who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Looks like his family was more notable than he was. Royal broil 04:13, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phreeda Sharp[edit]

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

Claims to notability (specifically multi-million album sales and award nominations) are referenced by unreliable sources. Language is largely promotional. RadioFan (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--technically, the article doesn't claim she has multi-million album sales and award nominations, just that she worked with a producer who did. In any case, notability is not inherited, and the subject doesn't appear to pass our music guidelines. Also pretty clearly promotional, with phrases such as "an edge which sets her apart from the rest", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Moore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was not notable when this was brought up before, still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't cut the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penticton Pinnacles[edit]

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

Does not meet football team notability guidelines. Team is not in a fully professional league. Does not meet WP:GNG either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable amateur team. Cannot find evidence of participation in National Cup competitions, nor is it in a national league, so fails WP:NFOOTY (the professionalism of a league is not relevant per this guideline). Cannot find much in the way of coverage, seems mainly about youth teams. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Canada's National Cup competitions are either for fully-professional teams (such as the Voyageurs Cup) or fully amateur teams (such as the The Challenge Trophy). There are no national competitions for semi-professional teams; this is mostly a function of the cost and geography of the country, so such cups tend to be regional. However, the Penticton Pinnacles are members of a league that has in the past been sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation, and US members of that league have played in the US Open Cup. As such, the technicality of the lack of any national soccer competitions that this team could play in, is just that - a technicality. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, so it may be difficult / impossible for the club to enter a competition that would lead to a technical NFOOTY pass, so could you indicate how the club passes GNG? Just because NFOOTY can't be satisfied, doesn't mean an automatic keep. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because NFOOTY can't pass means an automatic delete unless the subject meets another criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, a non-notable club. JMHamo (talk) 01:21, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academic software pricing[edit]

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

This article is very short, does not cite any sources, and does not meet notability guidelines and has been tagged as such since 2012. Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 01:58, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a dictionary definition for software that's reduced in price. Only 7 articles link to it, not too difficult to remove the incoming links. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:36, 26 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) 07:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jassie[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the relevant notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. No substantial reliable source coverage for GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer (Play)[edit]

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

Non-notable play. reddogsix (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage at by the San Francisco Chronicle and broadwayworld.com within a week of its opening suggests notability; given the notable roles of the play, further coverage can be expected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is trivial at best.. There is nothing here to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the SFC states that the play was a trigger for a Bauer retrospective exhibition at a major art gallery. The broadwayworld.com article is solely about the play, which has been commissioned by the San Francisco Playhouse. The play's title character is played by a notable actor, Ronald Guttman. There's also coverage by The San Francisco Examiner ("Lauren Gunderson’s new play ‘Bauer’ tackles art and history"), the San Jose Mercury News ("Playwright Lauren Gunderson's 'magic wand' about to strike again"). These publications satisfy #1 at Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The play was written by a notable playwright, Lauren Gunderson. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The play is clearly notable and is about multiple notable characters and issues, It is about a long debated moment in art historyMasterknighted (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 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 redirect to Vampirella#Other_versions. Feel free to merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vampi[edit]

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

Non notable Little Professor (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I might be able to find enough to justify an article on the overall comic, so I may re-vamp this (drum riff) and re-write it entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge/redirect to Vampirella#Other_versions. I couldn't find anything out there to show individual notability, but this is another name for Vampirella and the name itself would be a valid redirect. Since the Vampi comics are released through the same publisher as Vampirella is, we could just merge the basic info into a subsection named "Other versions" (as is in the norm with articles such as Jean Grey, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be fine with a merge/redirect option but there certainly isn't enough to justify a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 06:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a subsection at Vampirella#Other_versions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Provides a merger target. Stalwart111 09:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 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 redirect to Wakefield, Massachusetts#Education. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galvin middle school[edit]

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

A small middle school is not notable enough for an article. This article consists of information saying that it exists, and it exists in the "center of town". It then goes on to state basic information about this school, that it is for Grades 5-8, which applies to many other schools. 123chess456 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move & Redirect- To Galvin Middle School, redirect to Wakefield, Massachusetts#Education, as the district article has not yet been created. Discrete search term, no signs of notability despite the flurry of replacement location articles. Dru of Id (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ansh666 04:41, 26 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. There were several suggestions to merge this into international reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis or Republic of Crimea (country), or possibly some other targets that I missed (plus some renaming ideas). These seem like plausible suggestions, but I'm going to take the narrow view here and say that AfD is fundamentally for talking about deletion, and it's abundantly clear that nobody thinks this material should be deleted outright. How the material gets divvied up between the several articles seems like more of a content discussion, which is better handled on the article talk pages than at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of the Republic of Crimea[edit]

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

International recognition is irrelevant to the crisis, as Crimea has already signed a treaty with Russia on accession, and has never stated a desire for nation-state independence. In fact, the Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksyonov has specifically rejected the "the Abkhazian version" of independence supported by Russia [78] The appropriate article about the issues surrounding the Republic of Crimea's territorial status belongs at: Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation or Republic of Crimea. This article, on the other hand, only adds to the cluttering of articles dealing with the current crisis in Ukraine and Crimea. --Tocino 06:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a (de-facto) country, if only for a very short period. International recognition may be irrelevant now, but we don't delete articles about historic issues simply because they have become irrelevant; once notable always notable. That said this should probably be merged into Republic of Crimea (country). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Merge into the "Republic of Crimea (country)". There isn't any content on this article which isn't already covered in the article "Republic of Crimea (country)". Yesturday I already proposed that this article be merged into "Republic of Crimea (country)" and it seems to have enough support to merge the articles. IJA (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Far too early to discus deletion or merge. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge to Republic of Crimea (country). I do not know what the name for this one day legal fiction should be, but for now the content can be there. Now there are too many "Republic of Crimea" articles, but the content must go somewhere! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Republic of Crimea (country) has now been merged into Republic of Crimea, so this content can no longer go there. The article should be renamed to International recognition of Accession of Crimea to Russia or something. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to deletion. Three interwiki. NickSt (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an independent republic now part of Russia that is recognised by both Russian and Kazakhstan. 72.79.135.33 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It wasn't recognised by Kazakhstan, it was only recognised temporarily by Russia as part of a process/ procedure to 'legitimately' (in the eyes of Russia) annex it. Besides, all this information is included in the article "Republic of Crimea (country)". There is no point have the same information twice as this article doesn't add anything new which isn't available in other articles. IJA (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Republic of Crimea (country) as per consensus at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)#Proposal_to_merge_article_titled_.22International_recognition_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea.22_into_this_article. If enough content ever develops around the recognition of this country it could be WP:SPLIT, but currently there is not enough to justify two separate articles and this is just a WP:CFORK of Republic of Crimea (country) as all the content is repeated there. TDL (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly expand to a broader article in the future that would also cover countries recognizing Crimea as part of Russia.--Avala (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I'd like it to be merged with Republic of Crimea (country). Mamemame187 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Since Russia was the only UN member state that recognized Crimea -- which ain't nothing, but doesn't exactly a list make -- it's really not necessary to devote an entire article to "Russia recognized Crimea". This information can and should be simply folded into Republic of Crimea (country). -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sceptre's suggestion -- far more relevant than Russia's sole recognition of the one-day state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but refocus to international recognition of the accession. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think we need a separate article for the country, since it only existed one day, but this article is very clearly not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also note the three interwiki links. Tibet2014 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the account Tibet2014 is just three days old.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short of long-term WP:notability: there is nothing to recognize. Merge to international reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and muh feelings. Citation Needed | Talk 15:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into international reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis or Republic of Crimea (country), international recognition was a one-off, newsy event that doesn't need to have its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three interwiki links Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for keeping it, other Wikipedia follow different notability guidelines.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible for the result of a deletion discussion to be 'void'? The scope of this article has changed dramatically since the introduction to this discussion was written. As a result, it really feels like what is said there is void, and not applicable. Therefore, by definition, everything else written in this discussion must be void too. Furthermore, there is currently a discussion about restoring the associating article going on at the moment, and its outcome is rather instrumental with regards to the future of this article, so that's another thing to take into account, too. Redv Blue 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That’s right. There is another discussion, even closer relevant to this article, at talk:2014 Crimean crisis #What to do after normalization?. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and refocus to reflect the recognition of Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation as opposed to independence, per above. ansh666 04:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sceptre. The international recognition of Crimea as part of Russia is now a real fact and mustn't deleted. --Taichi (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is long article and deserves NOT to be merged. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:25, 27 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.