Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mydala[edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. A quick Google search brings up plenty of news from business news sites and the like which seem to confer notability. The article ain't great though, and could probably do with with a rewrite. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a case of doubtful notability, but a case of clear advertising. The Banner talk 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's solved by editing, not deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Agreed. The company exists and seems to be covered in news media. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Advertising is not actually a reason to delete here. Much stuff if put here as advertising, either companies or Wikipedia writers advertising something they are interested in. Instead if it can be converted to an encyclopedic tone then we can keep it when the topic itself is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We still have the policy Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. The Banner talk 22:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources ultimately considered to be notable, but while going through the article it sounds like an advertisement which needs to be cleaned-up as above suggested and even I suggest, instead of dragging the article here for AfD discussion Advert template was making more sense. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. 200 million monthly views (even in a country as large as India) shows this clearly is a company of significance. It goes well beyond advertising, it turns it into a company a responsible informant for the world cannot ignore. That said, the advertising aspect of the content needs editorial help. That is not justification for an AfD as Dylanfromthenorth pointed out above. Trackinfo (talk) 17:32, 12 October 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. Secret ^account 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Paul McDonald[edit]

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

Not a notable individual, by Wikipedia's standards. An effort has obviously been made to puff up the article, but there's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard has built a massive following in recent years on his various social media platforms and in academic debating circles in London and Dublin. I have followed his progress since he won the Young Black Achiever's award and he has done well to raise social issues in both public and social media spheres. I personally think his role as a young politically active person-of-colour makes him needing of a wikipedia entry. He is currently scheduled to attend many debates this year and this is the perfect time for an online biography of Richard to exist! Reliable sources often do not pay attention to young academics, young black academics at that, so it is understandable that 'independent sources' are hard to come by. I have gone to great trouble to do research on Richard's life and obtain his permission for the photo to be included and feel that he is one of few academics really causing a stir at a grassroots level today. His activism is well documented and known in academic spheres. It might be worth noting that I do not know Richard Personally, I came across his work as a volunteer for the Labour Party during his work at the youth gym in Nottingham. 00:38, 11th October 2014 (GMT) User:Wikitruth93 (talk)

Delete. Sounds like a nice guy, but I'm afraid he isn't quite there in terms of notability yet. Wikipedia's strict guidelines on biographies of living people demand that reliable sources exist and are cited, and they just don't yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is lacking for this 20 year old fellow. Such coverage is the only way we could verify his "massive following", whatever that means. No plausible claim to notability is offered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and clean up I have added references and photos to substantiate claims made in the article including Richard's work in fashion. By 'Massive following' I mean his social network following and invitations to public debates Wikitruth93 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I have also added an explicit rationale for his notability on the introductory paragraph on his page Wikitruth93 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove false claims Richard McDonald is a well known member of the Nottingham City Community, and contributes to many current social issues. His input as a Nottingham citizen far outweighs that of citizens such as Paul McMahon who has had a page for years without any contribution beyond cricket in the Nottingham community. To ignore Richard's contributions would be discriminatory on racist, ableist, homophobic and religious grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshanah (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Roshanah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please assume good faith when it comes to the people arguing for deletion of this article. Your comments insinuate that the people arguing for deletion are only doing so because they are discriminating against him, which can be seen as an attack against these editors. Continuing to make comments such as these will not only be seen as an attack and make it more likely that you may be blocked for attacking other editors, but it will also greatly decrease the value of your argument and in some cases, make the closing admin disregard your argument entirely. Also, please be aware that the existence of other pages (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not mean that this article will pass notability guidelines. The other pages might fail notability guidelines or the individual may pass based on coverage- either way, the existence of other articles does not mean that this article should or shouldn't remain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as written, doesn't even suggest that he's either disabled or queer — if he's either one of those things, the article isn't saying it — so there's no basis for claiming that anybody is motivated by ableism or homophobia, and not a single person in this entire discussion has even implied that his racial background had anything to do with their reasoning either. Our inclusion rules are governed by the presence or absence of sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that a person passes one or more of our notability standards, not by anybody getting a free notability pass just because they happen to be gay or disabled or multiracial. (Wanna guess, while we're at it, which two of those three I am? And the one I'm not, I have two nieces who are. Yet I voted to delete below — so where does that leave your argument?) Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Well this is strange...I actually went to see a live debate in modern problems in africa last night with Richard in! I don't really see why his notability is up for debate; he is known in academic circles (for which independent 'evidence' is hard to come by) and as far as i'm concerned his breadth of involvement in things definitely makes him notable. How many young bi-racial academics do you know who have also modelled for topshop? The boy deserves a wiki! Jimijewel (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)— Jimijewel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Social networking doesn't make for good sourcing because it's by-and-large ephemeral. If he's notable - and deserves an article - he needs to do something that gets some headlines. Being biracial, modelling for a high-street store and appearing in non-notable debates isn't qualification enough, unfortunately. LS1979 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion standards are not governed by notions of whether the subject "deserves" an article or not — one could argue that their own girlfriend "deserves" an article because she's the hottest bestest girlfriend ever, and one could argue that a serial killer doesn't "deserve" the "publicity". Rather, they're governed by the presence or absence of reliable source coverage which verifies that the person has done something that could credibly be expected to earn them permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. "Deserves" has nothing to do with it one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he might make a more significant career in politics, modelling or academia later on (at which point we will have an article on him) but at the moment the achievements are too localised to have any impact. This is more WP:TOOSOON or WP:BASIC than anything that could be perceived as discriminatory. LS1979 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a confessional, unprofessional biography of a fringe (or perhaps better to use the term radical) idealist. Being biracial is not-notable per se and even his supporters do not use the term "activist" from what I can tell, but let's not get into semantics. Radicals can be but are not de facto notable, that mostly depends upon their accomplishments. At the very least, this all is way too soon -- let him accomplish something notable first or get elected! Quis separabit? 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, as written, is an article about a person who might have a little bit of local prominence, but does not pass any of our notability rules for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. The sourcing isn't nearly good enough, either, as it relies heavily on Tumblr and Twitter and YouTube, with only a couple of cursory mentions in any real reliable sources — so he isn't the subject of nearly enough real media coverage to qualify for inclusion under WP:GNG. Having a following on social media doesn't cut it as a notability claim, either — it's the presence or absence of reliable source coverage that gets a person included or excluded around here, not raw numbers of Twitter followers or YouTube video views. It's certainly possible that he might accomplish more in the future, but Wikipedia isn't a venue for promotional profiles about people who aspire to become notable — it's a venue for neutral information about people who have already passed one or more of our inclusion standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 16 October 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) czar ♔ 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sengunthapuram[edit]

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

Seems non notable and this is a very short article and unreferenced even after 2 years of tagging the article. Param Mudgal ^talk? 12:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We usually keep articles about settlements that can be verified. A Google search yields a post office. It also shows that there are at least TWO villages named Sengunthapuram in Tamil Nadu, India. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Gene. Internet searches verify the existence of the village. However, the article does need some reliable citations. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per the above and per precedent Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can somebody please add the citations to the stub? Bearian (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've put the pincode with ref. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X3SR[edit]

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

Non-notable group fails WP:BAND. No coverage found in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listed 13 Sources from multiple countries, what else do you guys need? If my sources aren't good enough may I please have suggestions on what are. Also will getting sources from this list ( wikipedia org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources ) be deemed acceptable? Vlolv (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference from South Florida (Broward County) Newspaper. As my 14th reference. Vlolv (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed more of the editting and added a reference from known notable music news reviewer Consequence of sound.Vlolv (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the number of references isn't relevant, but rather that they are reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken thank you, the references I put though I don't think I put too much so that's ok I hope. The two REALLY, REALLY good ones I think are the newspaper references and consequence of sound. I hope that's enough if not then I guess I failed at this wikipedia thing and i'm sorry guys I gave it my best shot. Vlolv (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band has six fairly good sources (sites that seem to have an editorial staff and somebody there to check the copy) as well as a lot of sources that are really off the mark. I've listed them at Talk:X3SR#References_for_this_article. I suggest that the badly sourced information simply be deleted and the well-sourced data be left in a vastly shortened article. When this band becomes world-famous then the article can be pumped up with other information from Rolling Stone or wherever. In the meantime, it seems to be Notable within the definition of WP:Band. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Removed the bad references and left the good ones, the reference in the southflorida.com website was the song PASSIONE itself. I linked it so you can hear it if you want. The reason why I put this is to show the public that if their song got used by a south florida newspaper as the backdrop for an NBA Finals reference, they have to count for something. Besides that I did word for word what has been told of me and will continue doing so. Thank you so much wikimasters! Vlolv (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I added another reference by popular publisher Dancing Astronaut^[1]. Thanks again all of you for your help, i'm all ears to keep improving. Vlolv (talk) 17:38, 27 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was closed, it said keep. Can someone add to this? Or does it just stay like this forever ?Vlolv (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.dancingastronaut.com/2013/05/das-sunday-morning-medicine-downtempo-edition/

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. Secret ^account 02:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickley (politician)[edit]

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

Contested prod, well established that failed candidates are not inherently notable, coming 2nd in two recent by-elections does not amount to notability, suspect some POV pushing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I don't believe that this person meets any of the criterion there. st170e^talk 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable yet. In some cases, unsuccessful political candidates can be notable for that alone, but only when they've been doing it so long they've become a perennial candidate (e.g. Bill Boaks). This one doesn't seem to be at that level, he's just another run-of-the-mill defeated candidate. Robofish (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even perennial candidates don't necessarily get automatic inclusion rights in Wikipedia — it's still conditional on the substance of what we can verify and write about them. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:N as applied under WP:POLITICIAN. He has not had significant third party coverage beyond his candidacies in the two by-elections, which should be (and are) detailed in the relevant by-election articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. One does not become a perennial candidate until you run and lose at least thrice in elections. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant media coverage of individual meets notability easy. 203.173.182.197 (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media are required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area — so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot help get the person over WP:GNG. Either you properly source that they were already notable enough for an article under a different inclusion rule before they became a candidate, or they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election — except in very unusual and rarefied circumstances which this doesn't meet, coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost their notability in the interim. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I am not sure to what extent the media are strictly speaking required to give coverage to a candidate, but since UK parliamentary by-elections usually attract a relatively high level of media attention, any candidate is likely to receive some significant routine coverage, so it would have to be shown that this was more than routine. PatGallacher (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL. An unelected candidate in an election or by-election does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis alone — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for inclusion before they became a candidate, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 18 October 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. Secret ^account 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slayers (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

No notability as a tag team. Does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 19:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 19:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an excellent example of a team which has had extremely little success or impact. starship.paint ~ regal 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They had a storyline and I thoung they'll be a tag team like LayCool. However, another Divas alliance. No notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've discussed this article in the past on WT:PW, it is obvious that it fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 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. Secret ^account 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Romaniuk[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose sole claim of notability is having served on a municipal parks and recreation board — which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. While Vancouver is in the narrow range of cities for which we do extend notability to the members of Vancouver City Council, that doesn't extend to lower offices like its school board or its parks board — normally, a person on the lower bodies only qualifies for an article if they have previously or subsequently held a more notable office, such as the main city council or a seat in the provincial legislature. Otherwise, you'd have to source her past WP:GNG, but the only reference here is an election results page which doesn't even actually have her name in it anymore, because it's since been updated to list the results of the 2011 municipal election instead of the earlier one that she actually ran in — so it would have been an invalid primary source even when it did have her name in it, but now it fails to even verify the claim of notability it's being cited for at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she ever actually wins election to an office that actually passes WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so Leslie Knope gets an article but Romaniuk doesn't? Seems harsh. Delete as per nom, not yet notable enough for inclusion, not until she wins a higher-level office anyway. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An elected parks commissioner does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 11 October 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. Secret ^account 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn J. Fogg[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines and all sources are primary. Voyaging^talk 15:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 27 September 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 16:56, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical published works for a Ph.D candidate which the article states he is. Fails WP:PROF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly notable in his field. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have have any independent sources to support that claim? Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this individual and all of the article's sources seem to be primary. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 18 October 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. Secret ^account 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Dudley (producer)[edit]

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

At first glance this page appears to be notable but I've had no luck attempting to find any reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. I don't believe the page meets GNG or anything under WP:Notability (music). J04n(talk page) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 September 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 16:54, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs after 6 months? Is the BLP policy a policy or a joke? Bazj (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no clear consensus after several relistings. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timbres magazine[edit]

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

Unsourced for years, nothing to really indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My French is poor but if it really is one of the two major French philatelic magazines and has the history the article suggests then I think it is notable. Improving the article would be preferable to deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether what the article suggests is indeed correct is what we are here for to determine. Our article has no sources. The French WP article has some, but apart from a snippet on France Info nothing of importance either. A Google search gets lots of hits, but apart from WP and its mirrors, most are commercial sites selling subscriptions plus a few blogs. No sources means, unfortunately, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to what is wrong with the sources in GBooks. For the avoidance of doubt, I am minded to view this magazine, and the four magazines that were apparently merged to form it, as a single topic for the purposes of notability. James500 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that no explanation about the sources in GBooks has been given because you're the only one seeing them. Care to explain which sources you're talking about that show significant coverage?? The book by Bernhard Grzimek published before 1923? The one marked as being based on WP? The in-passing mentions in others? Or the handful of citations to articles in this magazine? Any sources about any of the predecessor magazines? --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL James500 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New refs added. A minor one by me and this one by User:Ww2censor which discusses all three former magazines and Timbres. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but neither of those seems to constitute significant coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we insist on "significant coverage" not only will we have to delete this article but the articles for 1000s of other magazines and publications. As you know, people don't tend to write articles about magazines. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, which is why I myself only bring magazine articles to AfD in rare cases. But once we're here, we have to apply the guidelines, which call for significant coverage... We have some decent guidelines for academic journals (inclusion into selective databases), but we lack something similar for magazines, which are rarely included in similar (selective) databases. I have no solution for this, but cannot !vote other than "delete" just because I like articles on magazines... --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to apply them. James500 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of IAR, because it inevitably leads to subjective judgments. It should not be up to a few wiki editors like you or me to decide what they like to include or not. Unless, of course, you think we should do away with the whole concept of notability... --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is subjective. James500 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we can use judgement as to how strictly we interpret the rules. This is the continuation of a magazine first published by Le Monde in 1946 which has a couple of decent sources and probably a lot more if we could add the offline French language ones. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

France & Colonies Philatelic Society of Great Britain published an index in 2004. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good sources for the predecessor magazines, I would certainly see that as counting towards notability of the successor magazine, given the continuity of publication. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 10 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horror icon[edit]

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

Any information that is mentioned on this article has already been mentioned in their respective articles, and even if there's something new the info can just be merged with the respective articles, or maybe into the article horror film. I tried speeding this under G2, thinking it was perhaps someone who was just interested in horror films and did his first article on horror films, but it was declined. I felt that it didn't really apply under any other speedy nomination, hence the AfD. There's no citations, so this could be original research, and the article is also an orphan. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this BRAND new article and tag for continued work. More than just the characters themselves, certain actors and film directors (IE: Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Jr., Stephen King, Brian De Palma, Alfred Hitchcock, Don Coscarelli, ect.) are considered "horror icons" through their bodies of work, and the topic of "horror icon" is notable, improvable and sourcable.[1][2][3][4][5] and many more. The topic of "Horror Icons" has been discussed and analyzes in multple book newspaper, and news sources. I am concerned for for this being improperly tagged for speedy as a "test page" 11 minutes after creation and then being sent to AFD 10 hours after the improper prod was declined. So now what? Lack of sourcing and format issues are not compelling arguments for deletion of a brand new article on an arguably notable topic. Was WP:BEFORE followed or any concern toward this topic's WP:POTENTIAL? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. This term is used akin to how the term "scream queen" is used to describe specific female horror movie actresses, although the way they're used is somewhat different. (Scream queens specifically reference female horror actresses while the term "horror icon" can refer to characters, writers, actors, directors, or anyone that's considered to be extremely well known and a staple to the genre as a whole.) There are multiple instances where the term is used in books (as shown per Schmidt) and I've included one book in the article, an academic text that specifically uses the term "horror icon" in its title. I want to note that the book is volume 2 of a 2 book set, which shows that the term is more than just a fly by night neologism. You can also see it in use in various internet articles like this one, this one, and this article by Forbes. I kind of liken this to the recent AfD for "movie marathon", where this is a term/notion that is so widely used and referred to that it's one of those rare exceptions where I'd say that the term is obviously notable and that deleting this would definitely put Wikipedia at a severe disadvantage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Schmidt and Tokyogirl79.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article on a notable topic by a fairly new editor, improved by MichaelQSchmidt and Tokyogirl79. Referencing and formatting are a bit of a struggle for almost anybody starting here. Lemnaminor (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article has rapidly become a collection of poorly sourced laundry lists and unsourced discussions. There are no discernible inclusion criteria, and there really can't be any, beyond "somebody used this phrase to describe somebody or something somewhere. "Horror icon" isn't a meaningful phrase, just a media/popular catchprase. When you look at parallel articles/lists, they're substantively incoherent. Ultimately, distinguishing "horror icons" from horror-related subjects isn't any more worthwhile an effort than distinguishing "movie stars" from actors and actresses, or "great authors" from authors generally. It's not really different from trying to define a canon here, which can't be done without violating NPOV and NOR. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums considered the best, while not clearly conclusive, lays out relevant arguments in a similar context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1500+ book results, 150+ scholar results, 135+ news results, and 25 archived newspapers tend to show the term is meaningful enough through its wide and continued usage over a many-years period to be worth writing about within these pages, and concerns with presentation or format of any article on a notable topic is best dealt with through regular editing. As everything within Wikipeida is spoken of elsewhere, meeting our primary inclusion criteria is the consideration. If information is supported by multiple outside sources, a claim of POV or OR is not ours, it's that of the source... whether industry expert, New York Times or Library of Congress. WP:DISCRIMINATE addresses your WP:WAX argument bringing up an unrelated AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a phrase has been used repeatedly does not mean it denotes an encyclopedic subject. Everything you say would also be true of "Great writers", but there are very good reasons that's a redlink. What are the inclusion criteria to be? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends how and where and why and for how long a term has been used and in it being the subject of commentary and analysis in reliable sources, as are such definable "terms" like movie star, blue meanie, serial killer, etc. You could certainly create and make up as many empty red links as you wish, but they're "red" because no one has yet written the article. Readers can simply await the possible article on your suggestion for one on "great writers".

But this does not change that for the most part editors here find inclusion criteria set by WP:N. As offered above, the term "horror icon" has been subject of commentary and analysis in multiple news, book, and scholarly sources, including other encyclopedias. IE: "Icons of Horror and the Supernatural", "Horror Film Aesthetics", "The Gangster Film Reader", and "Cinefantastique" for instance. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia being built for its readers or not? We're WP:IMPERFECT... and WP:NOTFINISHED quite yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable topic, as shown by sources that discuss it in depth, and as such it passes WP:GNG with flying colours. By having a look at the sources, it also seems that Wolfowitz argument of "horror icon" being equal to "great writers" or any other similar generic phrase is not persuasive.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:26, 2 October 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are sufficient evidence of notability, and the scope can be (and has been) sufficiently narrowed so as to avoid the scope creep concerns cited by Hullaballoo.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:12, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 02:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shoaib Khan[edit]

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

Too soon? Seems like it. Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 September 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 03:29, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable. This is so badly formatted as to warrant WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication of importance or notable as @Bearian: suggested.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:36, 17 October 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. Secret ^account 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islami Shashontantro Chhatra Andolan[edit]

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

notability, unrefernced Owais khursheed (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 September 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 03:26, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:WEBHOST, and WP:SOAP: "We want...." I want a rainbow pony, too. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 13 October 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. Secret ^account 15:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy C. (Cobos)[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources dependent of the subject of this BLP. I do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 25 September 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 03:18, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable references in the article, and none can be found. Stanleytux (talk) 06:33, 14 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav BenJava[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP. I do not believe the page meets GNG or AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 25 September 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 03:17, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one of his books is at Amazon, self-published and ranked "#14,376,263 in Books". A red flag that he's non-notable is that no one can come up with sources after relisting(s) and no one can come up with a birth date or year. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient info to even decide whether BLP applies. Not notable. Bazj (talk) 20:23, 18 October 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. Secret ^account 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Brass and the Funk Parade[edit]

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

No suggestion of notability. No RS found. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 25 September 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 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 04:02, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 10 October 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. NPASR (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Valadão[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 25 September 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 03:15, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 15:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhishna Radhay[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Written one book a year ago. Goodreads listing, or just listings in other review sites doesn't establish notability of the author. Dennis 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear few things. Dhishna is an well known author of Dubai and her book is one of the best selling books. Another thing is that she was interviewed by one of the popular newspaper group Le Défi Media Group. Please check ref. link 1. --Vishal Joshi 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vis says (talk • contribs)

May I have any updates on this? I want to know updates on this article. As these warnings are ruining persons honor. Vishal Joshi 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vis says (talk • contribs)

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 03:11, 3 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G12 and WP:A10, as it's both promotional and a bit of a duplicate of existing copies. It's also very much WP:NOT, so there isn't a chance that this would pass AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Soda V. Regular Soda[edit]

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

This is a poorly written personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Not only does it duplicate existing topics such as soft drink and diet soda, but it is ful of misconceptions, personal opinions, original research, links to websites on memes (!), preposterously non-NPOV statements ("Americans are brainwashed"), etc. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

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

The similar article Flora of ASOUE was deleted following this discussion and an article on ASOUE locations was deleted two years ago.

Although ASOUE is notable, as are the books in the series, notability is not inherited. The only sources in the list are to the books in the series - while the facts in the article are true and sourced, they are not notable. No reliable sources discuss the importance of fauna to ASOUE and this is "listcruft" - a list of things mostly irrelevant to the plot of the series (and where relevant, they are already described under the relevant book article's plot section). The list is of little interest to anyone other than maybe a few big fans and has no place in Wikipedia. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm forced to agree with Bilorv. Derivative articles seems on point. By themselves, the fauna do not achieve notability, and might best be placed on a web site devoted to fans of Lemony Snicket. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I repeat my opinion from the Flora AfD, because this article has exactly the same problems: This article consists of nothing but plot summary sourced almost entirely to the work itself. There's no end to the number of plot summary articles that could be written with the focus on this or that fictional element. Most of these are not suitable for WP articles, and this one also is not. Reyk _YO! 01:25, 15 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McCabe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the League of Ireland. Since this league is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL) playing in it does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 13 October 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. Secret ^account 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (actor)[edit]

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

Unotable voice actor Wgolf (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree he is not notable, at least yet. If his show takes off and he does more work then maybe then. A small blurb on the Undergrads pages is more than enough for now. Revisit if/when his career and/or show really take off. Resaltador (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. It's possible I missed articles about him, since searching on the string "Pete Williams (actor)" is too restrictive, but searching on two strings -- "Pete Williams" and "actor" -- gets some hits from the journalist of the same name, as well as others. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:02, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonna Agadzhanova[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG nor do I believe the page meets the criteria for FILMMAKER. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, TV news and film producers are all too common and rarely are considered notable. Finally, its does not take a lot of creativity to write a check or manage a bunch of talking heads. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sourced only to IMDB which has long been disallowed as a reliable source because one may buy the ability to list things and also because subjects can sometines self-list items. but a long list of credits. maybe get a real source or two and rework it. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure where "a real source or two" is going to come from, I've spent time looking without success. J04n(talk page) 23:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Not much in Russian news media, nor in international news, and nothing in entertainment news. Although I found a Russian-language source here, so I am somewhat uncertain, may be a problem with difficulty with name spellings? But if I used what appears to be the Russian-letter spelling, filtered by Russian news (in English?) it turns up dry. Possible source here, plus a listing here. Not sure what to make of this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources in 6 months, BLPPROD only denied on a technicality, it's a no-brainer. Bazj (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. No consensus to delete. Whether the article should be redirected and merged elsewhere can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoobie[edit]

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

Not a very encyclopedic topic to begin with (the term has an entry on Wiktionary, where it seems better suited), and the article content is chiefly unverifiable. I haven't immediately found any credible sources that discuss the term or its origins at depth. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (very very weakly) as a dialect / regional language trivia item. but barely. and needs the WP:OR to be cleaned out. that might not be readily doable. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - digging a bit deeper ("Not just a Jersey Shore thing: TV takes 'shoobies' national", July 6, 2002, The Philadelphia Enquirer) it seems the term "shoobie" popularized by Rocket Power in the early 2000s was "just made up" independently of the south-Jersey label. They both vaguely allude to annoying tourists, but I think the discrepancy further limits the potential for this article to ever make much sense. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As much as I hate to see WP:NOTDICT thrown willy-nilly at language-related articles, the concept that shoobie describes is the day-tripper, albeit with added connotation of unfashionable or otherwise negative social position. On that score, I would be willing to entertain a WP:WORDISSUBJECT argument, but at the moment I don't think this word passes notability requirements. The word is, by the way, included in Regional vocabularies of American English; it's also at wikt:shoobie. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my argument makes a case for redirect or selective merge to Day-tripper, doesn't it? Cnilep (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The New York Times provides several articles that cover the term, including this article from the On Language column in the Sunday Magazine that describes the term in detail, while this search from the Times shows it is one of at least ten articles that rather clearly use and define the term in the newspaper of record. Further south, Philadelphia magazine provides this article on the Shoobie phenomenon and this search of Google books brings up a dozen more references, at a minimum. A day-tripper is someone who takes a day trip, perhaps to the beach, but the nuance of Shoobie is as a pejorative used for a damned outsider from the perspective of the natives, not unlike someone being called a Haole in Hawaii. The use of Shoobie is thoroughly documented and clearly notable based on the scope and breadth of sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Alansohn.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't going to gain a consensus to delete... not sure it needed to be relisted. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:02, 10 October 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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Clerc Award[edit]

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

Unnotable award that has received no significant media attention. Fails WP:GNG Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Write-up here, notable deaf people such as inventor of the modem Robert Weitbrecht won it before he died after being hit by a car. References added; important award for the deaf community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That reference just an announcement about one winner by the student newspaper of the university that bestows the award. Also, notability isn't inherited from notable people who have received the award. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hear what you're saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added just a little bit to the article. Seems like a significant award in its area, i.e. contributors to deaf-mutes; who better than a Gallaudet(sp?) alumni group to make such an award. Longrunning award, so now in fact the article becomes a useful list of notable persons in this area, for one thing. Some more citations documenting wider public awareness of the award itself would help, but that is a matter for tagging and editing, not deletion. Seems significant, helpful; it does not help the Wikipedia grow to delete this article. --do ncr am 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think many of the winners are going to be individually notable. Searching on one of the award winners, Berta Foster, brings me to Google book "Deaf Persons in the Arts and Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary" by Harry G. Lang. In a long passage on Andrew Foster (Berta's husband), it is mentioned that Andrew Foster won the 1975 "Gallaudet College Alumni Association Award", which I presume is another name for the Clerc Award. And Andrew Foster is described in a quote from a eulogy there as 'Andrew Foster is to Africa what Thomas Hawkins Gallaudet is to the United States of America'. There's probably enough for an article about Andrew Foster if one does not exist yet. [And there is article already, at Andrew Foster (educator). I can't explain current list-article mentioning a different person Turc not Andrew Foster as 1975 winner. Maybe the article needs to cover 2 awards offered by Gallaudet, if they are different but similar ones.

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

More external coverage of the award(s) may come from searching on those. But, whether or not internet searches find recent coverage or not, I think the longstanding award is in fact notable (though maybe off-internet sources document better), and it is useful for prompting development of list of notable person. Keep it for now, tag however you like, and I for one will work on it. This could be revisited in 6 months. --do ncr am 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: This Gaullaudet University Alumni Association (GUAA) awards page clarifies about several related awards. I think the one article can/should be expanded to be about all of them. The Clerc award is about outstanding social contributions by a deaf person in service of deaf persons; another is about outstanding achievement by a deaf person in an unrelated field, etc. This expansion is for editing and for discussion at article Talk page; my point here is that there is plenty to cover about important persons like Robert Weitbrecht, mentioned below by Disavian, who invented the modem. --do ncr am 12:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I was working on Robert Weitbrecht, the references made it sound like this was an important award, so I went ahead and wrote this list. I'm guessing that most winners of this award are ignored by most mainstream press coverage, but I'm betting that they're actually quite notable. Disavian (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last item on the WP:INHERIT states "there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable" is not a valid reason to keep an article. I could award the Clarityfiend Splendiferous Award for Awesome People to Einstein, Gandhi and the Pope. It doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. As you've implied in your comment, there's no "mainstream press coverage" of the award. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments clang claxon-like, clacking in my eardrums, clarifying my continuing clamor that within the deaf community, the accolade is conspicuous and clear. When capital kinsmen in the hearingless clan such as Carol are conferred with it, the clear cut consensus is us Wikipedians should hear the sound that the award makes, so we can clap and clap and clap.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, your point is noted, but no one is manufacturing such an artificial list. And the alliteration noted, too, Tomwsulcer! But, I agree with Disavian that the award mentions that I have seen seem to suggest this is an important award. And, the article topic can be broadened to cover other deaf - hearing related awards and award-winners, too. Again, I haven't found my way to deadtree references about the one award, but it is a long-running one, predating the internet. I am quite sure there is plenty of material on the broad topic area of deaf/hearing related awards and lists of winners. --do ncr am 23:50, 13 October 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) czar ♔ 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalpur Fake Encounter[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The incident is yet not notable enough to have a WP article. The title also violates WP:NPOV. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been reported for five days and will likely continue to be covered, so it is probably not deletable under WP:109PAPERS. The newspapers referenced have substantially different contents and are adequate for WP:GNG. I changed the template to "Current" from "Under Construction." --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep|No Delete: The incident has shaken Punjab Government. (various news report). Wiki is not news, agree but Encounter itself which involve politicians and in which SSP/SHO/Homegaurds etc. are suspended, in which parties like AAP, Congress actively participating, For this special Special investigation team also been set, provides enough to mark it notable. It is similar to other encounter articles on wikipedia like 2009 Dehradun Encounter, Rahul Raj encounter, Tulsiram Prajapati Killing etc. It should remain under construction till final results comes out. Title can be change to Ludhiana Fake Encounter or something else? (Karantsingh (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
We have to wait. I would be nominating every encounter article for deletion, but the guideline of notability allows having these articles. Until now I regarded it as Ludhiana Fake encounter killings, but we can talk about title sometime later. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is renamed to 2014 Jamalpur Encounter. Though Jamalpur is small area in Ludhiana. It can be named as 2014 Ludhiana Encounter but May be in future more encounters occur in Ludhiana or more articles comes from Past so giving it an area name and describing about area in article will be better approach. (Karantsingh (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not deletable under WP:109PAPERS.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and as for WP:LASTING.It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:24, 12 October 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zi Ran Men[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable martial art. All of the external links are to primary sources and there's no claim of notability. Clearly fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an old AfD with Keep decision (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zi ran men) but that was long ago, tenuous and remained un-fixed. More importantly two new articles have just appeared on Du Xinwu and Wan Laisheng which are mentioned in the text suggesting that maybe there is new impetus to fix it up. I mentioned this AfD on the new article creators talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, I'd be up for fixing it next week. There's a couple of half-decent sources in Google Books [6], [7], plus some stuff in Chinese like [8] that I might need a hand with, but overall I reckon it's worth having an article on. It's one of the most obscure internal arts out there, but its two major proponents (about whom, as Peter points out, I've just been writing) are fairly noted in martial arts circles. Concur, though, that the current article is a pile of pants, and if it does get nuked I'd be perfectly happy to recreate it from scratch instead. Yunshui ^雲 _水 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now made considerable changes to the article, adding several sources (worth noting that one of these, Kozma, has an entire chapter devoted to Zinranmen), expanding the training section and removing the unsourced quotes and external links. Hopefully that should be enough to demonstrate the art's notability. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources and changes establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PRehse and Yunshui.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:20, 13 October 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. Secret ^account 15:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen of the World 2014[edit]

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

A yearly article about a not notable pageant which doesn't have a mother article or a reference. Article was proded but IP took it down without explanation. ...William 11:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. I wouldn't object to keeping if even minimal sources could be found. I notice Miss Queen of the World 2013 appears to have no sources either. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable event. Mabalu (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding reliable source coverage for the pageant nor its 2014 edition. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian heavyweight boxing champions[edit]

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

List is an abandoned, isolated, unreferenced example of a series of lists - none of the others where created. Even the text had not been changed from British to Australian when I first Prod'd this. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our editing policy which makes it quite clear that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Potential sources for the topic include Australian Boxing: The Illustrated History; Australian Boxing World Champions; Fighters by Trade: Highlights of Australian Boxing; Australian Boxing Records; &c. Andrew (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Gene, and WP:NOEFFORT afd isnt an article cleanup process Gnangarra 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the link you want is WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - nope WP:NOEFFORT says nobody is working is not a valid reason for deletion Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) which is the reason for it being nominated. Gnan garra 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question How does an unsourced list of names (most with red links) show this topic is notable? There's no indication of what boxing organization's title is being referred to and nothing to indicate notability. I have no objections to putting this in someone's userspace until it is fixed, but after 18 months I think it's reasonable to have some sources and indication of notability. I didn't vote to delete because I want to wait for an explanation as to what I'm missing concerning sources and notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List of National level champions, is notable. yes it does need sourcing but quick check of those who already have articles confirms they belong in the list. possible detailed source for more recent http://boxing.org.au/competition/competition-results/ Gnan garra 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- for older boxers individual bios http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/jackson-peter-6814 have info. Gnan garra 08:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Right now this unsourced article needs a lot of work. I think the topic could be notable, but the current article is a joke for an encyclopedia.Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michig has fixed this article faster than expected. Nice work, Michig!Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, the article is a mess, and I sympathize with Mdtemp's suggestion to temporarily userfy the article pending a clean-up, but the subject is clearly notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I hope someone with strong knowledge of Australian boxing history will take this on as weekend project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my indented comment ~~Userfy~~. I agree that it's a technical Keep BUT if that were to occur, we should immediately delete all red-linked names -- you can't just make claims about people without references. Also, lacking additional data, the current table format should be removed and replaced with an unformatted list of the remaining names. We're left with something useless. It would be better to put it into Draft space, to give people the chance to find the necessary information. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that from the beginning but thought it best to leave it until after the discussion. If the article is kept it will have to be gutted.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the good work by Michig, I changed my note to keep. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just needs sourcing it seems, which I'm happy to take a look at. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be fairly easy to add the missing names and find sources for all of this - I've added a few sources already. I have no objection to this being moved to draft until it's improved - it's going to take some time to build it up and that will be difficult if other editors are intent on removing unsourced details. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Well done. With your extensive sourcing and clean-up work, there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that this is a "clear keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding my earlier comment, I didn't mean to imply this topic couldn't be notable but I didn't see how an unsourced and ill-defined article could exist on WP. Personally, I like the idea of someone taking the time to fix this article. It might also be nice to define what championship(s) are being talked about since there's such a plethora of boxing organizations. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there has only ever been one Australian professional heavyweight title (although in the early days it sometimes isn't clear how official the titles were). The ANBF was set up in the mid-1960s to fulfil the same role as the BBBofC in the UK, so I assume that is the only governing body that controls the title. I have now filled in the details as far as I could. I'll revisit it later to add sources. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is so much better and in its present form I have no objection to Keeping. The nomination was based on the look of drive by list creation. Created and forgotten during afternoon tea.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Michig for rapidly fixing this once atrocious article. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 12 October 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. Secret ^account 15:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos App[edit]

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

Violation of WP:SPIP -- article created by app's developers. Just a Kickstarter campaign for now. Amazins490 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. I agree that the current version of this article is unacceptably promotional, and that currently there's insufficient content to justify a separate article about this app. However, given the existence of some actual coverage in reliable sources, notably this article in Ha'aretz, some limited non-promotional content about this could benefit our general coverage on the subject of Shabbat and technology--most probably by adding to the existing article Sabbath mode, or maybe Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Computers and similar appliances. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge under Shabbat and technology might be a good idea. But the project is little more then an inactive Kickstarter project. There's not much to merge sans promotional content so deletion under WP:SPIP is a good idea . HaGingi (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — HaGingi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but de-commercialize to meet WP requirements and standards. Otherwise, the article is an informative and encyclopedic entry that cites sufficient WP:V & WP:RS satisfying WP:N. The article is easily part of Category:Judaism software, no different to Category:Christian software & Category:Islamic software, that are all sub-categories of Category:Religious software‎. The article is a welcome addition to similarly innovative phenomena as can be seen in Category:Shabbat innovations. Also, please consider WP:CHANCE & WP:DONOTDEMOLISH Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for coverage of Category:Judaism software, but the problem here, as the nominator noted, is that this app doesn't actually exist yet. So, is it notable enough as a proposal already to qualify for an article? WP:CRYSTAL#5 may be instructive here: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Your observations are important, however, in this case this App is part of a bigger subject, the use of cell-phones and texting on Shabbat and Jewish holidays (supposed to be days of "rest" according to strict Jewish law) by growing numbers of supposedly Sabbath-observant young Jews and in that context both the need for and buzz about a Shabbos AP is very much "where the money is" as both a solution to the "problem" and innovation in Jewish law that would permit it. The fact that it has already been reported and discussed in mainstream Jewish media and on the social circuit boards makes it notable. It's not just about a "product" it's also about the Jewish Sabbath, how it's "kept" or "desecrated" depending on the POV, to some it is a "violation" and "abomination" while to others it is a "salvation" and "permission", so it's more complex than just a mere widget being proposed as it goes hand in hand with broader societal trends and theological disputes. Thank, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The article has now been WP:WIKIFIED and been WP:NPOVed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - looks like a hoax, and at the very least, doesn't actually exist yet. - Epson291 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a credible rationale for a !vote. It's clearly not a hoax. See the Haaretz article, for example. Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof in that article that the app is real in any capacity. - Epson291 (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article, from an RS, is about what the RS refers to as a development state app -- that's inconsistent with your suggestion that it is a hoax. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HaAretz literally just pulled the lines off the Kickstarter page. Which means HaAretz' RS was Kickstarter, which was written by them... Full circle. Is there any proof this app exists or is in development, demo videos, face interviews with the developers? An actual development company? Nope. Just a Kickstarter page that the Jewish news websites have all quoted (and bringing lots of page views to the article I might add) - Epson291 (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an RS, it has a reputation for fact-checking. That's what we rely on. Not an editor's personal musing that perhaps the RSs didn't fact-check, and have been hoodwinked by a hoax. Of course, we have editors who think that all sorts of things, including Obama's place of birth, are hoaxes ... but we go with the RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the article. The article is clear they didn't fact check themselves by their own admission, they are quoting what the developers said to Vosizneias as well as quoting the Kickstarter. Vosizneias is not a reliable source (and that site is run completely anonymously, hardly a RS). - Epson291 (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the above !votes were made before a slew of new refs were added to the article, all focused completely on this app. Included in the article now are refs reflecting RS articles devoted to coverage of this app in Popular Mechanics, Haaretz, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, The Times of Israel, Israel National News, The Jewish Daily Forward, The Jewish Week, and Jewish Business News. This topic, without question, now meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. It isn't exactly a hoax, but it is a fringe piece of nuttiness, and the guy pushing it is doing anything he can to drum up publicity. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for this purpose. It was created by a single issue account, and in addition to deletion of this account, I think that account should be banned. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think that User:Petertrd and User:Yossigoldstein are probably one and the same. Both appeared at the same time, and both have been single article editors. Both accounts should be banned. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an article meets GNG -- as this one indubitably does -- it meets our notability criteria. Notwithstanding individual editor POV, that it is "nuttiness." For truly nutty subjects, see Category:Conspiracy theories by subject ... all nutty subjects that Wikipedia covers.

As to your suggestion vis-a-vis weighing contributions of editors on the basis of the number of edits they have made, that would be OK ... we might weigh most those !votes here by !voters with over 5,000 edits, for example ... but I don't think it's necessary. And of course of the !voters here, it would only exclude you, and a merge !vote. If you have an issue not with a !voter, but with an author of the article, this is not the forum for that discussion. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep putting an exclamation point before the word "vote". In any case, my point stands. We don't start including things like this a couple of weeks after they appear, and most certainly not when the driving force adding them to Wikipedia are clearly two sockpuppets being operated by a person or persons with a definite conflict of interest. And I'm not talking about a small number of edits; I'm talking about single purpose accounts that are almost certain sockpuppets. Pretending that I'm talking about absolute number of edits strains the bounds of what can be assumed to be good faith.

These were accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and furthering this article as part of the PR blitz they've been engaging in for the past week or two. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of the RS refs. And I'm not a sockpuppet.

And we do most certainly cover articles that meet GNG, even if one editor (without proving it via a sockpuppet investigation) avers that an SPA had a hand in article creation. Your assertion is simply not correct.

And we write !vote because it is not a vote.

In short -- many RSs have devoted full-length articles to the topic, and it meets GNG. That outweighs (by far) your personal assertions, unsupported by any finding via a sockpuppet investigation, and even if there were a sock we would still weigh -- regardless -- whether this article is substantially covered by RSs. Which it clearly is.

(BTW, most of that coverage is during the time the two new editors "appeared" -- we do see that sometimes with newly hot topics; if you you have a suspicion you wish to pursue bring it to a sockpuppet investigation, rather than here). --Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that those two accounts are SPAs. Just look at their contribution lists. The article's creator has a total of 5 edits, the first of which being the creation of the article, and all of which being on that article. The other account has about a dozen and a half edits, all but one of which are on this article, and the one outlier being a blurb on another article talking about this one, which was promptly deleted there. Why don't you take a look yourself. There is no app. There is nothing but an empty PR campaign, and you are facilitating the use of Wikipedia to further that campaign. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be more credible if you were to not use hyperbole. Such as "we don't" (when we do). And "there is no question" (when there is indeed a question). You may be correct. But you may be incorrect. There in fact is a question. You have failed to bring it to the appropriate noticeboard, and obtain a finding that supports your personal musing. Which you present as fact. And, as already mentioned, there has been a flurry of RS coverage of this in the past two weeks. Flurries of coverage of new topics do often yield new editors, whose first edits focus on the new topic. And -- you ignore this, again -- these aren't editors who have even !voted in this AfD that you are complaining about! Simply editors who have contributed to the article. If the article is -- as here -- supported by nearly a dozen RS articles fully devoted to the topic, we would not delete the article just because possibly two editors who contributed to the article are the same person. What we unquestionably have is heavy RS coverage, in at least two countries on different continents, that meets GNG -- where that is the case, GNG results in a keep, because unproven editor musing that two contributing editors are SPAs or have COIs is frankly immaterial if the article is .... for lack of a better phrase ... otherwise "kosher." --Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say there's a question of whether the two accounts are SPAs? They are by definition. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it is - if the case - relevant to an AfD? In light of the fact there are RS refs from nearly a dozen different publications on two continents, devoted to the topic of this article ... which ticks off the "meets GNG" box? Where do you see it written that under these circumstances, even if two editors who contributed to the article were SPAs (though the editor who contributed the most RSs to this article wasn't an SPA), the article somehow fails our notability criteria? Where do you see it written that an article that meets GNG should be deleted, because two editors who didn't even !vote at the AfD are focused primarily in their to-date editing, on that article, which is breaking news? Are you making up these "rules?" Please ... don't try to sell your personal opinion of what you would like our rules to be, as though they were in fact wp's rules. Someone might be misled. Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The most interesting question to me in this WP:AfD is what "promotion" means. Does anyone think a Rabbinical authority is likely to be influenced by a Wikipedia article to declare this app halachically acceptable? These are religious questions. The last I looked Wikipedia was a secular project. There are religious questions that only an authority conversant in halacha can address. We cannot "promote" the acceptability of this Mobile app. It is impossible. Can someone tell me what else we might be trying to promote by hosting this article on our project? Sources are abundant. This is an interesting question. Is it possible to make cellphone-use halachically-compliant for Jewish-Sabbath use? This is an article on that. There are no shortage of good quality sources weighing in on this. Most or all are doubtful that there is any way of getting around the several reasons that cellphone use would be prohibited for observant Jews on the Sabbath. But the discussion is taking place in many reliable sources. Wouldn't that give us the green light to proceed with an article on the subject? Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's promotion because the two accounts which created and made the first edits on it were created for the sole purpose of this article, and have done nothing on Wikipedia but push this article. We should not have an article on the subject, because that's allowing Wikipedia to be used as an advertising forum. If and when such an app is actually made and released, it might be worthy of an article. Right now, it's nothing more than a controversial meme. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for what? Advertising for circumventing well-established halacha which would prohibit the use of cellphones by observant Jews on the Sabbath? The sourcing for such a Mobile app is staggering. This is not a subject that has been ignored by high profile journalistic outlets. Please note: not one of the many sources discussing this app considers this app compliant with the halachic opinions of any rabbinical authorities that may weigh in on the subject. Then why is this app being discussed by so many sources? Quite frankly I don't know the answer to the question I just posed. My concern here is that a valid topic may be shunted aside in this AfD. Is my primary concern the editors that created this article? No, I don't think so. I am remaining focussed on the sourcing for the subject. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a notable topic is implicated here. But I think the appropriate topic is really Smartphones and Shabbat, either on its own or as a subsection of one of the broader articles I mentioned above. The Haaretz article and other reliable sources cited here are relevant to that broader topic. It's just not apparent, to me, that we should currently have an article named after, and focused on, this particular proposed app, especially since that app may turn out to be—well, I wouldn't say "hoax" or "fringe", based on the existing sources, but those same sources suggest that the "Shabbos App" might end up as "vaporware". Instead of a particular product, I think the article should focus on the halacha and practical issues. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Your line of reasoning seems very sound and productive, and indeed fitting this article into a broader one about modern digital Smartphones and Shabbat as you suggest makes very good sense, especially considering that the use of old-fashioned "regular" landline phones by Jewish Shabbat-observant doctors and emergency workers and organizations is an established fact and has been in use for decades, see Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Telephones. I also agree with User Bus stop (talk · contribs) that at this time the focus of this discussion should be on the article's contents and avoid focusing on possible problems about who the creator of it is because many banned and problematic users have contributed positively to WP regardless of their fate and end due to problematic behaviors that got them into potential trouble. Running afoul of WP:CHECKUSER does not automatically lead to eradication of a blocked user's contributions that remain the property of WP and such articles are then dealt with on their own merits or demerits based on their content. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the RSs. The focus of the nearly a dozen RS articles devoted to this topic are all about the app -- simply look at the titles of the articles. They do, of course, discuss at length the issue the app is meant to address ... that being "Smartphones and Shabbat" ... but they clearly have as their initial and central focus the app. Indeed, but for the app, it does not appear that there is much RS discussion of the subject. Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be a fringe piece of nuttiness, but it is so remarkable such that it has attracted published comment from reliable but very different sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently stands, the sources establish notability. The question is not what editors think of the topic, but are reliable sources covering the subject, and in this case they are and doing so in depth. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Alansohn explained. --Yoavd (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it now stands is very different in size to what it was like at the start of this AfD. I think that almost all the content that justified its existence has gone. The deleted content (deleted a OR) contained explanations of the apps functions. Now, about all that is left are lot general opinions of Jewish religious law about the use of smartphones on the Sabbath. Very little in the article is specific to the subject of the article. If that deleted content is gone for good, could not all that remains be merged into a general article about Jewish religious law regarding the Sabbath and how it affects the use of everyday objects and activities? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until a third party actually comments or reviews the app as a functional piece of software that exists, rather than just having sources detailing theoretical/religious objections about whether the proposed features of this proposed program breaks or successfully works around religious laws, I don't think there is enough to indicate notability. At the very least this article is too soon. There is no significant coverage of the app as an actual app (and how could there be, since it seems it does not exist yet as a working piece of software for people to buy and use). This edit removed almost all the content dealing with the features of the proposed app: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabbos_App&diff=629387632&oldid=629368154 - but it was right to remove it because none of it was sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG[edit]

Epeefleche has made the claim, several times, that this article conforms to Wikipedia's policy on general notability. I would like to challenge that claim, particularly seeing as how that is the only basis that's been presented for including this article in Wikipedia.

The definition of the guideline in question is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And "presume" in this case is further explained as follows:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

And here is where this article fails GNG. Under what Wikipedia is not, policy includes the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As has been pointed out before, this article was created by User:Petertrd on October 1, 2014. You can view all 5 of this user's edits here. This is the definition of a single purpose account. Other than an IP edit or two (mostly reverted), the next dozen and a half edits were all made by User:Yossigoldstein, whose full list of contributions can be viewed here. As you can see, this editor as well has never edited an article other than this one (except for a blurb about this one in the article on Sabbath mode).

Up until this point, the article is nothing more than an advertisement for the so-called "shabbos app".

From this point forward, users Epeefleche and IZAK have added material. But does that material meet Wikipedia guidelines? In fact, not a single source cited reports anything other than (1) the claims made by the creators of the app and (2) the controversy surrounding the claims made by the creators of the app, and objections to those claims.

In point of fact, every single piece of information about the app itself comes either from the inventors' websites or articles which quote the inventors' websites. Not one single piece of independent information exists about the app, and not one single source added to this article provides any independent information about the app either (which is virtually a tautology, since no such information exists).

There was a section in this article which made a case for the app. I deleted that, because it was, of course, unsourced other than the inventors' sites, which are inadmissible by Wikipedia policy. There are currently 24 sources referenced in this article. If Epeefleche, or other editors, insist on it, I will go through them one by one and show that what I am saying is the case. I would hope that such a waste of time would be unnecessary, but I am willing to do so if necessary.

So I'm addressing this to everyone who has so far voted to keep this article, and asking that you revisit your conclusion and change your vote, since almost all of them are based on the claim of general notability, which according to Wikipedia's definition of that concept has not been met. Perhaps there is room for a section on this app in a broader article on Controversies in Jewish law and technology, but until there are reliable sources about the app and not merely about the controversy surrounding claims about the app, there is nothing to see here. The app itself, assuming that it even exists, fails the general notability guidelines on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the app. Included in that topic is the controversy. We have nearly a dozen RSs, from two different continents, writing articles devoted to the app. This is what GNG is referring to when it speaks of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GNG is -- of course -- the primary test that we look to to determine whether a topic is notable. What Lisa says above she has said before. Perhaps it is time for her to stop beating a dead horse. Her focus on her concerns that two non-!voting editors have started with their initial edits on this article (we all started with our initial edits on some article) is a red herring, as discussed above. Really, this continues to simply be a rehash of the above, and to that extent a waste of everyone's time. Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the topic is the app. But the app does not exist! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the app does not exist. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith on the part of Epeefleche when I see spurious and devious statements like "we all started with our initial edits on some article". We did not all start with our initial edits creating a new article. This is not a red herring. Furthermore, I repeat that there is no reliable source for anything about the app other than what its "creators" have claimed. No one has seen this app. It's a story about an app, rather than an actual app.

Since you have chosen to repeat your inaccurate claim that there are reliable sources for this app, I'm going to take that to mean that I will have to go through each source and explain why it is not valid for determining general notability. Thanks for wasting my time. BRB. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need members of the New World Order showing up in their black helicopters and performing cattle mutilation at Area 51 to have articles about these concepts. I doubt the existence of extraterrestrial life (or of military intelligence), but the reliable and verifiable sources about all of these subjects is what makes these topics notable. The reliable and verifiable sources regarding the proposed app and its implications surpass the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I claim to have invented a time travel machine (worked out on paper only - I've not actually built it) and I send the specs to noted scientists for comments, and they all reply that it won't work and is useless, can we still have a Wikipedia article just about my soon-to-be-released device that enables its users to travel through time? That, essentially, is what is happening in this article. But we could have an article about the concepts behind time travel, and their place in literature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like cold fusion? The standard is not whether it works as described, the question is coverage in reliable sources. The Shabbos App meets that standard, while your time travel machine doesn't. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy. There are papers about fusion. This is one or two guys making claims that haven't been substantiated by anyone. And again, all the reliable sources say is that there are these guys making this claim. This would be like me claiming I'd achieved cold fusion, putting it on my website, and then contacting every website I know of to tell them about it. A bunch of them will run a blurb about it. Some will write articles arguing that I'm a damned fool. But we still wouldn't create an article on Wikipedia called Lisa Liel's nifty new cold fusion thingie. At the very most, I might get a mention at the end of Cold fusion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should stay on topic. The topic isn't "cold fusion" and the analogy is a poor one. We happen to be in the realm of religion—not science. Nor is the underlying technology in the "Shabbos App" particularly advanced. It is unremarkable. We are only discussing tweaks to normal cellphones that may make them usable on Shabbos. This can be discussed in theory. We do not have to have a workable model to discuss the implications of the minor changes supposedly incorporated into the "Shabbos App" if and when one is produced. Good quality sources do not seem to be troubled by the nonexistence of a working example of a phone operated with an installed "Shabbos App" and nor should we be troubled by the nonexistence of the product. Cellphone use has become a central part of everyday life for many people and that includes observant Jews. This is an issue that has received widespread coverage in many good quality sources. That is the essential requirement for an article on Wikipedia. There are various facets of the coverage of the "Shabbos App" found in good quality sources. It is a nonexistent Mobile app that has caused a lot of discussion in many good quality sources. This article can be approached from a variety of perspectives. It can be limited by links to articles that expand on difficult-to-understand concepts of a religious nature. But even as a stub it certainly has validity as a freestanding entity. The "Shabbos App" is a seminal invention attempting to accommodate otherwise irreconcilable requirements in religious and secular realms concerning Orthodox Jews. Notice the following: “A lot of people are stuck in an old-fashioned mentality, that what was is what will always be,” Goldstein told The Times of Israel in an exclusive interview. “There are plenty of other technology-oriented devices out there that allow users to perform functions that most people think are ‘assur’ — forbidden — but are really ‘mutar’ — permissible.” This could well be worked into this article. Don't forget that we are not taking sides in any ensuing debate. In the instance of this article WP:NPOV means striking a reasonable balance, in accordance the sources available to us, between those who advocate for the halachic validity of the app and those who denounce the app as hopelessly inadequate to the task of overcoming the various objections, from a religious point of view, of general, non-emergency, use of cellphones on Shabbos. Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to speed up my analysis of the sources, I'm going to remove those that are merely blog posts. Blog posts are not reliable sources. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just... wow. So many blog posts. So many duplicates. There are 18 sources left as citations. Of these, 6 are from halachipedia, which is an openly edited wiki. As such, I don't see that it's any more a reliable source than Wikipedia itself, which is explicitly not a reliable source, by Wikipedia policy. The remaining 12 sources are sketchy at best, but I'll put together an explanation of each of them. I will note, however, just for starters, that several of these articles list Yossi Goldstein as the app's developer. That's the same Yossi Goldstein who created this article in the first place, violating Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to Lisa's commentary Tuscantreat (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Epeefleche, you are quite the hypocrite. The article was created by a SPA. The initial edits were made by an SPA. Yet another SPA (the second one that's clearly identifiable as one of the developers on this project) just joined Wikipedia and made four or five more edits to this article. And you labeled Tuscantreat as an SPA when anyone who bothers to look at his contributions can see that this is far from the only article he has edited. I'm beginning to wonder if you have some sort of vested interest in this article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly desist with the personal attacks. The SPA editors who are !voting are SPAs, and are tagged as such. We don't tag non-!voting editors. You are pointing to editors who are not !voting. This point has been made to you above; I'm not sure why you do not apprehend the difference. And, of course, you are pointing to editors whose edits have been modified by subsequent editing by others. And, as has been clearly pointed out to you above, you have not indicated where under wp guidelines it is at all relevant to this AfD what the editing history of editors who are not !voting in this AfD has. Because, there is no such relevance. On the other hand, it is relevant to this AfD if !voters at this AfD are SPAs. The closer will determine what level of weight to give their !votes, with that information. Please take this as a warning not to engage in further ad hominem attacks on editors. Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 19 October 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 This is a combination of a WP:SNOW delete and a speedy deletion under at least two criteria: WP:CSD#G11 (promotion) and WP:CSD#G5 (Creation by a blocked editor), and arguably also WP:CSD#A7 (no credible indication of importance). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hitansh Kataria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources - the only source that isn't explicitly written by the subject himself is a promotional blog that lets you submit your own stories. Kolbasz (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Seems to be recreation of 3 months (ago) previously deleted article as per CSD #A7 by @JamesBWatson:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 October 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. Secret ^account 15:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Changning[edit]

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

Unotable volleyball player who was up for prod a few months back but the creator deleted it. (I have quite a few of these up for prod and AFD now!) Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried this search. Found things like Sina Hong Kong (passing, only in title), Sina Hong Kong (2) (just a rundown of the game), Phoenix News ("CCTV commentator states only Zhang can be trusted in Team China", but main point still being the game). This from Tencent Sports seems to be the most potential, really talking about Zhang instead of the games. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hisashiyarouin-well I have tons of these volleyball players up for prod and AFD's. It seems most are just unotable. (I should of just put prods on them, ha ha) Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indepth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ([9][10])--114.81.255.41 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while Internet sources exist, I don't think there are any reliable sources that discuss this person to any significant degree. Please convince us otherwise. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets no notability criteria as a volleyball player and I found no significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 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) czar ♔ 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arron Banks[edit]

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

I gave it a good thought and even after the author deleted the PROD I sent yesterday I still think it fails under WP:BLP1E. The man hasn't made anything notable before today, and even still the one event (of donating 1 million pounds to UKIP) isn't that notable in the first place. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been the CEO of two publicly traded Alternative Investment Market companies, and the co-founder of one of those, Brightside Group (now delisted), which claims to be one of the 20 largest insurers in the UK. Moreover he has been chief exec of two other private insurance firms, and director of numerous others. This coupled with his significant political donations passes him over WP:GNG for me. Kiwiguy12 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has received a lot of attention in the news media recently for his huge political donation, but as Kiwiguy12 points out, there are good reasons for notability before this recent event, so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies and he passes WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on business career, and political donations I think he is sufficiently notable. Naughpo (talk) 14:57, 12 October 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. Renaming and re-organizing the article can be further discussed at its talk page. Randykitty (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations[edit]

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

I have changed my mind on the value of this list. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, I do not believe that a list of schools under investigation has "enduring historical significance." True, this is the first time the schools under investigation have been publicly named, but what about all the schools that have been investigated in the past? What about those that will be in the future? I don't think an investigation of this nature is noteworthy. If something comes of those investigations, then perhaps, but not a routine investigation by itself. The OCR investigates all types of complaints all across the country. We don't have, for example, a List of Schools with open discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin investigations, for example. This article fails the WP:10 year test. --Briancua (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) PS - WP is not a newspaper: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --Briancua (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As the original author. This was agreed upon as an ideal approach both at [[11]] and in the discussion for the deletion of a similar category (see here as well). Furthermore, the article meets every condition of WP:GNG in addition to being a landmark event in the history of federal management of colleges and universities (also demonstrated in the article), but the nominator seems to have missed the extensive number of news articles that have arisen in the past year alone regarding Title IX investigations, as well as the radical shifts in college and university policies (see for example University of Oregon and Occidental College). Finally the "we don't have these other things" excuse is neither my fault, nor a good reason to delete another article -- "let's lessen diversity in the name of equally terrible coverage of diverse topics!" seems to be faulty logic. I would encourage Briancua to go create those articles instead of nominating others for deletion. I would fully support the writing of those articles.Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator on this one. I don't believe that this news is significant. I don't believe this passes WP:PERSISTENCE nor WP:DIVERSE. If you get enough sources, I will change my opinion on this article, but for now, I'm voting to delete. st170e^talk 18:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, st170e. I added some more links to news stories, as well as a brief paragraph about criticism to the lead - hope this helps you out (and feel free to add content to help with WP:PERS and WP:DIVERSE]].Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you do this, then I'll review my decision. I'll help out where I can. st170e^talk 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done! Thanks in advance for contributing. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a list is the right approach for this topic. It merits an article and it might be appropriate to include one or more lists in that article. But I think a better approach would be to include in that new article or in the specific college/university articles descriptions of historically significant events. For institutions that are currently under investigation and for whom the investigation and surrounding events don't merit a detailed description in the institution's article, a brief mention of the investigation with a link to this new article would be the best approach. Ultimately, I don't believe that lists are appropriate for ephemeral topics like "__ currently under investigation." I might !vote differently for a list of institutions that have been found responsible/guilty of violations although I still lean strongly toward including that information in an article dedicated to this topic where the larger history and context can be presented. This current list might also be appropriate as a part of such a new article but I haven't completely made up my mind (although I'm leaning toward "yes, it would be appropriate and helpful for readers (assuming it's kept up-to-date)"). ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. I think this information, though not necessarily a list of all the schools, would be more appropriately included in an article on sexual assault on college campuses, or something along those lines.--Briancua (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, whose lead already links to this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except this list was released by the OCR, which is not part of the task force to protect students from sexual assault. These are two very different government entities as I understand it Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also, note that the original title did not announce "open investigations," but instead referenced the event of the release -- it was later changed by Esrever [[1]]. Returning the original title would reflect that this is not about the list itself, but the event of announcing the list.Thebrycepeake (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, but remember: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See GrapedApe's comment below. Also, WP:ROUTINE "news coverage of such things as announcements... [is] not sufficient basis for an article." The event of announcing the list does not qualify either. --Briancua (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments and rationale of ElKevbo immediately above. To my way of thinking as a practicing attorney, the logic is the same as a "List of people with pending lawsuits against them" or "List of people charged, but not convicted of civil infractions." All of this smacks of using Wikipedia to publish a list whose primary purpose is the public shaming of these institutions, regardless of the merits of the individual cases. These are serious matters deserving of serious consideration, but context and analysis are required. A simple list of charged/accused institutions doesn't cut it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. These investigations happen all the time. The only difference is the government released the names of the universities. They didn't do that before. Universities would, and did, release that information at their own accord. So the only thing historic about this is the government releasing the names. Should there be an article about the government changing the policy and releasing the names? That's debatable I guess. But, the actual investigations aren't notable unless they lead to infractions. Dkspartan1 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to when universities and colleges announced they had been under investigation. Thanks!Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of a Title IX investigation could be made by the university, complainant and OCR. Previously, the OCR would only confirm an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation. That information can be found in the sources that you provided. Check out the investigation of Harvard Law School and Yale University in 2011 as an example.Dkspartan1 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Previously the OCR would only confirm an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation." Don't you think that makes this substantially different from "all of the other previous investigations"? Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's different is them releasing the names, that's it. Does that change the nature of the violation they are investigating? Does that have an impact on the outcome of the investigation? I don't see how it's substantially different if it plays no role in why the school is being investigated, no role in the investigation and no role in the outcome of the investigation.Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my way out I just want to recap what I've seen here. As I understand it, a lot of you (not all) are upset that such a list exists, agreeing with either of the critiques at the end of the lead of the article. I respect your right to disagree with things, and would never advocate for anything to stifle your right to have an opinion. What I don't respect is the use of Wikipedia policies as a mode of censorship. You might not agree with the motivations of the OCR's list, but fact is, it was released for the first time in Title IX history. WP:N is easily established, especially given the large amount of news coverage it has received across the country -- both in support, against, and neutrally reporting. WP:PERSISTENCE? Nobody here knows if it will be important in 10 years, but none of us know if it won't be either. If it's not important in 2 years, we'll delete it then. But for now, it has sustained over 5 months of news coverage and reference in national and local media. (Side note, We have an article for GamerGate, but no one seems to have contested that) I think folks here need to step back from the controversial nature of the subject -- and your feelings about the motivations behind the release of the list) and consider it as an event that has happened whether any of us agree with it or not. The facts surrounding the matter make it quite clear it belongs in an encyclopedia that claims to want to be the most comprehensive in the world. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By its nature, an ephemeral list. Content more suited for WikiNews. Also, investigation =/= violations. Change it to something like List of American higher education institutions found to be in violation of Title IX sexual violence laws and I'd be more inclined to keep (not mere investigation; more permanent).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GrapedApe and Dirtlawyer1. Although this list is not technically a BLP, it would fall under its penumbra. One of the sources in particular does not even link to where it came from; it could very well be falsified or a draft document. This whole thing smacks of witch hunt, wrapped into a conspiracy theory, shoved into a soap box, and sealed shut with Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. This is something more suited to World Weekly News. When such institutions are actually found to have violated title IX, then we can have a list or an article about this topic. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dirtlawyer is not the only attorney on wikipedia and none of us are licensed to practice in wikiland anyway, so that sort of appeal to authority is not a relevant argument. GrapedApe, Title IX is not a criminal statute, it's a civil rights statute. The first reason to keep this list is as stated in the article, it is the "first time the federal government has announced ongoing sexual violence investigations." That alone makes it notable and unique. So long as it is properly sourced and maintained, it is no different than WP articles on people such as George Zimmerman, who had an article prior to his trial. Perhaps if a rename would settle some of the drama, a name could be proposed, such as Title IX sexual violence investigations at American higher education institutions. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that my opinion carried any more weight than any other editor's, Montanabw, but mine is informed by a different background than many others. Nor did I realize that I was engaged in an "appeal to authority" -- simply sharing my perspective. That having been said, I am not the only lawyer-editor who is expressing an opinion in this matter, nor am I the only one who is expressing similar concerns. Your mileage may vary based on your own experience. I have read your comments in other talk page discussions, and I have found them to be quite sensible. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but change from a list into an article. Having a list article that serves as a collection of ongoing investigations is rarely a good idea. However, the actual event of these investigations is a widely documented topic with massive amounts of significant coverage from reliable sourcing. It has additionally shown clear long term notability from ongoing coverage and in the context of companion articles like the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change to article per Yaksar and with appropriate name per Montanabw. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. I agree with Yaksar (and others above) that we shouldn't have a list article of ongoing investigations—it feels like recentism. However, as Yaksar said, the publication of the list has received a lot of coverage, so an article about that is appropriate. I suggest renaming the article to a title that makes clear that it is intended to be an article, not a list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename There is a notable concept here and information here worth keeping, but my intuition is that the information worth keeping does not match the current title of the article. One option is to rename the article "Title IX sexual violence investigations", another could be "2014 List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations" so that the article can close itself just reporting the state at a point in time without having a changing list with different sourcing standards for different parts of it. I do not want the list adapted for prose format because there is no utility in making prose where the original sources being cited used a list. The news sources cited on this topic are reliable sources and this list meets WP:GNG. The further commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education strengthens that GNG argument by presenting a perspective from a different investigative perspective than a newspaper typically would. If this article remains unchanged it at least meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I am not persuaded by arguments that this article is of no utility for describing past investigations or future investigations of the same nature; reliable sources have covered this list as an artifact of the time, and this article can stand just for this list and just at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, I originally supported this list, but I think what I was supporting was more along the lines of an article on "Title IX sexual violence investigations," as you and others suggest. I don't think it's wise to name the institutions being investigated for a number of reasons, but an article on the history of OCR investigations, how investigations are conducted, the fact that institutions are now named, etc, would be appropriate. --Briancua (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested in my "delete" comment above, an article that actually provides context and explanatory content would probably be an acceptable compromise. That would, of course, imply an appropriate renaming. Suggestions, Brian? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given 1) the stub quality of the Office for Civil Rights article, and 2) the amount of non-list prose in this article, I wonder if there would be enough right now for a separate article on sexual assault investigations. Perhaps we could add a section to the OCR article, and then break it out as needed if it gets to be too long. --Briancua (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Briancua: As the nominator, you may withdraw the AfD without prejudice to resubmit it again in 30 to 45 days ("procedural keep, without prejudice to resubmit later"), in order to give Bryce and others adequate time to create 1,000 to 2,000 words of explanatory and contextual text. I'll pledge to participate, and I'll prod the other two lawyers, Montana and Bearian, to participate. Put the primary burden on Bryce and the "keep" editors to compose it, but I'll help to make sure that we arrive at an NPOV-compliant article with a modicum of procedural fairness to the listed institutions. I suggest you ping the author and other AfD participants and see if they are amenable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What say you, Thebrycepeake? Do you want to move the prose into the OCR article and then eliminate this list? I pledge to help whipping that article into shape as well. --Briancua (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be an obstructuionist here Briancua, but the OCR is actually responsible for an entire portfolio of projects under the Education Amendments of 1972 (itself a stub article worth merging with OCR!). As the original article (meaning the article from the OCR) stated, this was a presidential mandate to the OCR, and while it should probably be mentioned in the OCR page, should not be collapsed into it. Having it as its own article also helps with writing about campus sexual violence on college and university pages by providing a network of pages that outline the dimensions of the issues -- in its present form and past form. I would support adding a section to the OCR page, but not the merging these two articles.Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebrycepeake: Bryce, my proposal is to (a) immediately withdraw this AfD without prejudice to resubmit later, (b) in order to permit you, Montana, Bearian, me and others to expand and properly source the explanatory and contextual text of a real article (not just a list), and (c) in a manner that addresses the concerns raised here and elsewhere. Right now, the !vote is split 7 to 6 for deletion. I'm not absolutely committed to a pro-deletion position, but I do want to see the issues addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1 Absolutely - I think we will be good working together to keep each other honest!Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you think you can come up with a decent article on Title IX sexual violence investigations, I'll withdraw my nomination without prejudice. I have two conditions, however. First, the article should be significantly expanded or merged with OCR. Secondly, it should address concerns listed above. Sound fair?--Briancua (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work backwards from a hypothetical for a moment. For the sake of argument, let's say that the prose from this list and the OCR articles were currently combined in one article, and I wanted to separate them out into two. I would run into problems with WP:SIZERULE. The prose from the list is less than 2k, and anything under 40k does not justify splitting off into a new article. The prose of the list has fewer than 300 words. Meanwhile, a Wikipedia:Stub is an article with fewer than 500 words. While I support your goal of creating a network of articles talking about this important issue, I don't see the purpose of creating a new stub when this information could easily be combined with an existing article. This is especially true when they would be better together than they would be apart. Tell me, Thebrycepeake, if you support adding a section to the OCR about this topic but not merging them, what would you include and what would you exclude? At 276 words there isn't a lot to divide, and there wouldn't be much in the WP:SUMMARY that wasn't in the forked article. --Briancua (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, Dirtlawyer1, that I am simply thinking several steps ahead. If the article was simply rennamed, without being substantially improved, then I would move to have it merged. By simply doing it now we can save ourselves what would be, I imagine, a very similar discussion. I am not ignoring your proposal. --Briancua (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator without prejudice for the reasons stated above. --Briancua (talk) 21:14, 16 October 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. These are all non-notable events lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1998 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship[edit]

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

These and the following pages are yearly pages of a competition article just deleted by AfD (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. I personally voted for a week Keep but now that a decision has been made it makes sense (since they suffer from the same issue) to delete these as well. Note there are also articles for individual weight classes for some years but to avoid confusion I would take them in turn dependant on this AfD result. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The only sources for these articles are either the ADCC or routine sports reporting. There is no significant independent coverage. If the sponsoring organization isn't notable, it's hard to make a case for their events being notable--especially without significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note there was no template at 2001 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship, I have since added it. Also there is a discussion on my talk page about the deletion of the main article, I will direct said user here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all + restore main article. This is a major venue in the world of Grappling:

ESPN "The top grapplers in the world congregated in England this past weekend for the 2011 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. A bi-annual event, it's the most prestigious submission grappling tournament in the world and attracts fighters from across the globe."[[12]] "The highly regarded Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) was instituted by Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the United Arab Emirates in 1998." [[13]]
Sports Illustrated "A year later, he failed to let go of a compromised limb during a submission grappling match at the famed Abu Dhabi Combat Club world championships." [[14]] "Einemo is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt who shined on one of the sport's big stages, the ADCC Submission Wrestling tournament, winning the championship in 2003" [[15]]
Bleacher Report "In late 2002, Bravo entered the North American Trails for the ADCC Submission Grappling Tournament, a qualifier for the toughest no gi competition in the world." [[16]]
SB Nation "One of the most prestigious grappling competitions in the world lands in China for the first time on October" [[17]]
Sherdog "Started in 1998, ADCC is the world’s most prestigious grappling competition. The world championships take place every two years and tournaments are held in five weight categories for the male competitors. Additionally, an open-weight “absolute” tournament is held, pitting top competitors from each weight class against one another to decide the competition’s supreme grappler." [[18]]

ADCC championship accolades are notable and widely used:

Fox Sports "Galvao is a two-time world champion as well as an ADCC (Abu Dhabi Combat Club) champion multiple times over including a championship in the absolute weight division." [[19]]
Yahoo! Sports "A jiu-jitsu black belt, Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) gold medalist, and multiple time Mundials winner, Souza is perhaps the best jiu-jitsu competitor inside the UFC today" [[20]]

Further more, most of the winners (gold, silver, bronze) in all weight classes of the articles suggested for deletion have their own wikipedia articles and are also wiki linked to the above. (and the main article that was bizarrely deleted). *this post has been updated Bigbaby23 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your sources above, they would have been helpful at the previous AfD. Looking at them, the only one that may help to confer notability onto ADCC (in my eyes) is the ESPN article (which I am unable to open now to verify). Having said that, the individual article alone is not enough.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these articles have any significant independent coverage--they're just a list of results. Some of the articles have no sources at all. I believe WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:GNG both argue for deletion. This is not the place to discuss the parent article since, even if it existed, these articles don't show a reason for being kept. Papaursa (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I might support the merging of all of them to a single article, but I believe that the event isn't notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more sources being compiled at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11. In my view, there are already enough to establish notability of the topic in the relevant sense for Wikipedia. The remaining question for these individual articles is how best to organize the information. The weight class articles do seem excessively subdivided, and they could be merged back into their parent years without any loss of information or readability. However, I don't think there is much of a point to merging different years together. Melchoir (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the weight classes is a minimum and already done for several of the years. I really don't think there is a place in Wikipedia for just listing of results although that hasn't stopped anyone. I think each of the years might have relevance if there could be some prose added but that depends on whether the main article is re-added. If it is - I do hope there is some effort made to add the new sources and expand the article beyond the two sentences and a table it was.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of those voting keep seem to be confused about what this discussion is about. It's not about whether the ADCC is notable, it's about whether or not each of these individual events is notable. None of them seem to have significant coverage, some have no sources at all, so GNG is not met and neither is WP:NEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Musa[edit]

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

No valid sources. PROD BLP removed following the addition of three completely bogus sources that do not mention this person at all. At best, this is a completely non-notable distant relative of the royal family of Brunei. At worst (given the attempt to bolster with bogus references), this is a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7: Author requested) by Inter (talk · contribs)

Morong Ecozone Inc.[edit]

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

Not a single reliable source can be found to verify the claims of this article. The single valid source in the article verifies that there is a Morong Special Economic Zone, but nothing to verify that this company, operating within that zone, is in any way significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are useful information here for an article on the Morong Special Economic Zone itself as cited in ref #3. However, I don't believe this operator of the economic zone is notable in itself either.--RioHondo (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This company does not appear to be the operator of the Morong Special Economic Zone. Just a company that has named themselves after the zone. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 10 October 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. New sources are press releases and unreliable WP:SOFTDELETE and willing to userfy. Secret ^account 15:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDMI Limited[edit]

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

I'm referring this article to AfD as the creator has added some link sources for notability. Community will decide. Oz\^InterAct 11:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this is notable, it doesn't deserve an article. st170e^talk 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability or significance; not sure what aspect of WP:ORG is met here. Not all multinational corporations are notable just because they are multinational corporations. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly request you to see WP:LISTED. Its a public limited company listed in Singapore Exchange. I have added some links which I felt relevant. Few more secondary sources are - [21] [22] [23]. In energy sector, the company is notable and popular as other metering companies like itron and Landis+Gyr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anee jose (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED clearly states that companies listed in major stock exchanges are inherently notable. Now if your point is that the Singapore Exchange is not a major stock exchange, then please see List_of_stock_exchanges#Major_stock_exchanges. It comes in top 21. I believe that now enough secondary sources are provided too. These are the aspects of WP:ORG met by the article. --Anee jose (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly what it says; It essentially says that it can be but it still needs sufficient independent sources to indicate it is notable. I still don't see that. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the secondary sources provided are not independent? -Anee jose (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under References, two of the listings are from the company itself, and the other two are simple business directories which don't indicate to me what is notable about this company. I'm not sure what purpose the external links serve but if they are meant to be references they are not used in the article. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was under the impression that external links are also serving the purpose of references. I have modified the article. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Please have a look now. --Anee jose (talk) 10:08, 15 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey yen[edit]

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

Unreferenced and WP:PEOPLE fails. 115ash^→(☏) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, promotional (As a world-renowned expert... ) not notable enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content is unacceptably promotional (presumably self-promotional), but even if the article were completely rewritten to be neutral in tone and content, I don't see any evidence that the subject of the biography meets Wikipedia's inclusions standards - this resume appears to be typical of a successful late-career engineer. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but next time, a simple BLPROD will do, 115ash. buff bills 7701 02:55, 11 October 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. Secret ^account 15:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FEDGOV[edit]

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

Wikipedia articles are not ... Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTDICT. Poorly sourced at that.TheLongTone (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federal government of the United States. Shouldn't be its own article per WP:NOTDICT, but it seems like a plausible redirect. Kolbasz (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. I don't think it should be redirected either, it can't warrant a redirect. I can't imagine anyone using the redirect. st170e^talk 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Federal government of the United States. There's no indication whatsoever that this term is notable—not a single relevant secondary source has been provided. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 15:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Data[edit]

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

Primary source and two profiles. Not notable. Dennis 00:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 September 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 03:14, 3 October 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, czar ♔ 08:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to find some sources for this company, but I can't seem to find any. From the article, it is a relatively small company that doesn't seem to have had a big impact on anything, therefore I don't believe it is notable enough for Wikipedia. st170e^talk 23:03, 10 October 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.

Modiano (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS. Modiano redirects to Patrick's page. So we can use the template {{redirect}} to simply say:

Of course if other "Modiano" appears, this nomination can be closed anytime. (Note: I know the "category this nomination belongs in" is to disambiguation pages, but Twinkle doesn't give the option to nominate it there). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the creator of the page, and I've no objection to deletion. (If you're wondering, I created it to avoid the clutter that disambiguation hatnotes can create. However, I do see that the novelist is the predominant meaning.) In fact, it's not worth spending time on, so I think it should be speedy-deleted under G7 or just make a quick executive deletion.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Changed mind to Keep as per Pam below.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dab page has been expanded; assume the French Nobel-prizewinning writer is still the primary topic, so current situation is OK (have changed the "redirect" hatnote there to point to the dab page, not just the market). (@Northamerica1000: would you like to change your mind about G7?) PamD 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD: I haven't !voted here; only provided deletion sorting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread the lines above. (@A bit iffy: would you like to change your mind about G7?) PamD 17:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmeshdar[edit]

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

A likely on-wiki hoax. Didn't find any sources for this secret Zoroastrian step-son of Akbar; furthermore part of the article is copied from wikipedia's Akbar article, but with the name of the purported son replacing that of the actual general Mir Masum for whom we have reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable inline citations and information is entered into the article, which is unlikely at this point. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Muscat (grape). Although I agree with Amatulic that a grape variety most probably will be sourceable, the current article is unsourced and there seems therefore no verifiable content available for a merge. I therefore close this discussion as delete, leaving a redirect behind for convenience and that, depending on sources, can either be expanded into a real article, of information on this particular variety can be aded to Muscat (grape). Randykitty (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bornova Misketi[edit]

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

outsourced, lacking notability Owais khursheed (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an rename to Bornova Muscat, or merge with Muscat (grape). This is a wine grape, inherently notable with plenty of sources referring either to the English name or Turkish name, even in Google Scholar. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 24 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article is not verified. Kingjeff (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Number Four in the Apocalypse[edit]

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

The very definition of WP:OR Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR reddogsix (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quite openly and honestly someone's original research. Seems like a misunderstanding about what WP is here for. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not an encyclopedia article but instead a theological discussion. Bfpage |leave a message 03:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. First person perspective already failed. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is either ESSAY or OR. I expect that theological RS could be found discussing the subject, but this is certainly not the start of a worthwhile article on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Draei[edit]

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

Not notable writer, author of only one book, which is not notable either. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for him turns up a lot of wikipedia mirrors but not much else. The first reference in the article mentions him in passing, the second one does not mention him at all. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the man is not even mentioned by name in the second reference. This article fails to meet the notability guidelines.

Bfpage |leave a message 03:09, 10 October 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 12:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Partnoy[edit]

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

While Frank Partnoy seems to be a prolific writer, there does not seem to be any news articles or other sources about him that could be used to contribute to a meaningful article about him. Therefore, I don't believe he is notable enough to warrant an article. Attaboy (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I was not familiar with WP:PROF I still wish there were articles that talked about the subject, rather than his books, but I understand the notability. Attaboy (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fact there do appear to be enough such articles about him, such as the following reviews of his books. [24] [25] [26] [27] As well, we have this NPR article, and he has a respectable h-index of 26. [28] This seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and the h-index enough to meet WP:PROF. Jinkinson talk to me 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V8X Magazine[edit]

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

Notability and fancruft. No secondary sourcing has been attempted far less achieved. Specialist publication of limited appeal. Content of the article is far from complete list of covers. Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Falcadore (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Falcadore (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deleted in 2012 for a lack of verifiable references, and I don't see that anything has changed. Specialist magazines sometimes suffer from a lack of coverage in other media, but there's really nothing for this one. One V8X editor writes as a guest expert on Conversant Media's Australian sports website The Roar, but that's only the barest of inherited trivial mentions (and neither The Roar nor Conversant Media currently have articles, which isn't conclusive, but hardly a good sign). It has a listing in one volume of Benn's Media, but that's literally a directory listing. And that's really it, far from what's needed to establish notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see that this has overcome the issues raised last time. We need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maquis Forces International[edit]

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

Non notable fan club, whose sole claim to fame was that their logo was used in error by a news network Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One minor event, mentioned above, and no in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trivial mention isn't enough to establish notability Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of recurrent notability. Miyagawa (talk) 21:46, 10 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behlol Khel[edit]

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

I note lots of articles for what appear to be Indian or (as here) Pakistani clans, subclans, families, ..., Like in this case, the actual subject is hard to discern, never mind its notability. This appears to be a family, a subclan, living manly (or traditionally) in one hamlet. Nothing can be found (by me) online about them.

There are probably hundreds of these articles, and some serious effort may be needed to clean them up, but let's start with this one. Have I missed the good sources about this, or is this truly completely lacking any notability? Fram (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know why I thought digging into this would be a good idea... Gandapur is the tribe involved here. It is almost certainly notable, although like many of these articles, what we have on the topic is pretty wretched. Like other tribes, the Gandapur are subdivided further. Late-19th and early-20th century writers divvied the Gandapur up into nallahs (literally "valleys", cf. nullah, in the sense of "people living in each valley"). There are supposedly six of these, according to what sources I could find. I utterly failed to find a complete list, but two of them are the Brahimzai and Hamranzai (the five lines of descent listed at Gandapur#Origin legend might be five of these six, with a different spelling convention). These are almost certainly not notable independently, but probably would deserve treatment in a better article on the Gandapur. The topic of the article at hand, however, is evidently a subdivision of that; this level of tribal structure is represented by (most of the entries in) the long list currently at Gandapur#Sub-tribes. These, as far as I can tell, are almost certainly not notable for stand-alone articles, and I am dubious about whether they should be covered in the article for their parent tribe. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgway, Richard Thomas Incledon (1997) [1910]. Ahmed, Malik Munir (ed.). Pashtoons: history, culture & traditions (2nd ed.). Sales and Service. p. 86.

Rose, H. A. (1997) [1911]. "Gandapur". A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province: A–K, Volume 2 (Reprint ed.). Atlantic Publishing. p. 277–278.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. From the article, its hard to tell what the subject even is. From the blogs, I gather it's a subclan that lives in Swat. Nothing encyclopedic here. Claimsworth (talk) 03:07, 10 October 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 DZMB. Regarding the first redirect !vote, the DZMB article has a list of programs that the radio station broadcasts. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Love Conversations[edit]

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

A radio call in program that is on a network, now maybe if it was something major something like this could have a page-but not so much for here, only refs are FB and Twitter. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manila Broadcasting Company or to a list of programs that they broadcast - I think this program actually does have quite a following (I occasionally get to tune in), but surprisingly there seems to be little coverage for the program itself. I can recall the host (Papa Jack) occasionally being interviewed by the newspapers' entertainment sections (mainly for his hosting the show, not about the show itself), so that possibly could establish notability for the host, but perhaps not for the program. For now, a redirect (rather than total deletion) is probably a better alternative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-Interesting enough the host has no page and I looked him up and nothing even links to that name!Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DZMB where the program segment is mentioned. As for Papa Jack's notability, I think that should be a topic for another day.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to add segments, spin-offs and some references to improve the article. Aztegdude (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning toward a redirect, but two different redirect targets are suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DZMB. Manila Broadcasting Company has many radio stations, a more specific target would be more helpful. –H T D 20:31, 14 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tse Wing Hung[edit]

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

Another one of these unotable volleyball players (I have been either putting BLP prods, prods or XFD's on tons of these the past few days...) Wgolf (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia). Unless I missed it, he hasn't medalled in any significant tournament. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and competing at the Asian games is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 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. Secret ^account 15:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nalawade[edit]

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

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, and because the topic fails verification, and because the topic fails the general notability guideline for lack of citation to reliable sources about the topic. This article appears to be about a Maratha clan, I say appears because it lacks a lead section. It has been around for two years since 9 August 2012‎, so has had plenty of time for attention. The article currently has no citations concerning clan status. Sitush removed unreliable sources in 2012. See User talk:Starrahul#Maratha clans I was not able to find reliable sources to establish clan status. Even the not-reliable "crowd-sourced" surname page entitled Nalawade Genealogy, Nalawade Family History at Geni.com is empty. I found two Wikipedia articles that linked to this article, List of Maratha dynasties and states in which it is listed under "Rulers" for Pune, Satara and Sangli without citation, and List of Marathi films where it was a false drop for the actor Arun Nalawade, which false drop I have corrected. In Shrivastavya's 1952 book Are Rajput-Maratha Marriages Morganatic? the name "Nalavade" with the letter "v" is mentioned, but the sources and reliability are unclear. All of the existing citations are about individuals who happen to have "Nalawade", in some form, as a surname. Example: Mr. Dattatraya Shankar Nalawde Mayor of Bombay was born in village Vanake in Ratnagiri Dist. Anyone one of the three reason given above should be adequate for removal. I note that, among other warnings and bans, in October 2012 the article's author received a six-month topic ban on editing Maratha related articles, and did not return to editing after its expiration. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could be replaced with a surname page listing the articles about people with this name (currently four). However, this does not require any continuity with the current article. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 30 September 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 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to this version of the page which had been previously trimmed down by Sitush, which describes it as a surname. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That version still fails verification since the citations that Sitush removed were only the unreliable ones. --Bejnar (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:11, 17 October 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. Secret ^account 15:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building Commissioning Association[edit]

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

WP:SPA creator has not established that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and neither could I. It has been tagged for notability for six years, almost since its creation. Please also see Draft:Building_Commissioning_Association where it was assessed as not suitable for inclusion in WP and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#September 23 where the WP:SPA WP:COI editor made comments. Prod removed by me as COI editor had evidently meant to (see the article's talk page). Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 24 September 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 17:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 October 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. "closing" this, not detected by bot as closed since it has been moved. Randykitty (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

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 Music of the Dominican Republic. Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop in the Dominican Republic[edit]

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

Unsourced affair that looks like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Information is ok but seems to minor to have its own page. Could be small blurb/section at the Dominican Republic and any major artist page that came from the Dominican Republic. Resaltador (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Music of the Dominican Republic. Doesn't yet require its own article and there is a worthwhile merge target. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:58, 10 October 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 Sultana (grape). Randykitty (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sultaniye wine[edit]

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

lacking notability and does not have any sources Owais khursheed (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is well known Turkish wine grape. It certainly seems to be the subject of some scholarly work, such as this http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10600-005-0157-0#page-1 ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I added two sources including the one found by Amatulic. The wine is notable, but not much is written about it. I also discovered that Sultaniye wine is made from the more commonly known Sultana (grape). I think the best thing to do is to add a section to the Sultana (grape) article on Sultaniye wine. I am One of Many (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, in line with our current practice of having articles about wine grapes rather than just the wine, with information about the wine incorporated into the article about the grape. Zinfandel is an excellent example of this. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Notability hasn't been established. Kingjeff (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sultana (grape). See Wine Grapes: A complete guide for details. Andrew (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sultana (grape). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Person noted for a single event: an airport detention for carrying brass knuckles and jihadi literature. Does not appear to have even gone to a trial. Although Vijay Kumar is a very common name, this particular Vijay Kumar does not appear at all notable outside of this single, non-notable incident. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: IMDB page for the name has several titles listed as sound editor, but again, who knows if it is the same person. Also, Patriots' Forum, the Delhi group with which news articles say he is affiliated, does not have him listed as an officer, or any mention of the arrest in their Sept 2010 archives. I'm not finding much else to expand notability... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently written, the fact the Vijay Kumar is a filmmaker is irrelevant. It talks solely about a single event (his arrest on entry to the United States). This doesn't make him notable. I also searched for info about his documentary filmmaking career, to see if he'd qualify there. IMDB doesn't qualify as a reliable source -- and even as a starting point, it may not help, as I don't think any of the "Vijay Kumar's" in IMDB is a documentary filmmaker. His name is so common that it's difficult to know which search hits are about him, but I didn't find anything definite. For example, there this [29], but it may or may not be he, and it's not an independent source. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above, vaidated by independent review of another editor. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:34, 11 October 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.

[1] ttp://www.dancingastronaut.com/2013/05/das-sunday-morning-medicine-downtempo-edition/

[1]