Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 September >

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. Other nominations aside, the consensus on this specific nomination is that this particular individual passes GNG. If anyone disagrees, I am not opposed to this NAC being reverted. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Chernova[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alright, so apparently you nominated a fair number of Miss Universe single-nation pageant winners for AfD, I guess. For almost any non-African country, sources will be readily found. For Ukraine, you simply need to look up the Ukrainian spelling of her name, and you find sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. I think I've saved this one, but maybe some others can also be improved. Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How could someone win this for their nation without getting ample coverage in their native language? Dream Focus 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a move afoot to try to eliminate Miss Universe contestants. I've commented on other AfD's where the Noms were in bad faith. This one too, there is plenty of coverage, particularly if you count pictures (thus the lack of prose). This is a beauty contest winner and contestant, that's what you'd expect. I just added six sources to the article, not one of them repeating the same picture. Miss Universe is a commercial, media event. There is plenty of coverage of each contestant. Lesser sources rating their chances. Notability achieved simply by being in the pageant. If you want to remove it wholesale, then you can talk about the merits of the contest, but that is a much bigger discussion. Don't expect rocket science or even the answer to world peace to be coming out of any of their heads. If you want to remove worthless notability, lets start with Kim Kardashian, but that is not what wikipedia does. The mere selection to Miss Universe is sufficient to establish notability. Lets agree on that fact and move on. Trackinfo (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current Wikipedia rules would seem to consider her to pass WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per keep votes above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:35, 11 September 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. ...with presumably no prejudice against speedily undeleting/recreating once the subject actually plays in a pro match slakr^\ talk / 08:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Walton[edit]

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

Non-notable subject - has not played a professional club game to pass WP:NFOOTY and does not appear to otherwise pass WP:GNG Clicriffhard (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 September 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) 10:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christian Walton has been named on the bench in a professional match. He has also played for England internationally at U19 and U20 level. He is also included in the first team squad on Brighton and Hove Albion's official website. 15:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.209.65 (talk)

~~Keep~~Comment - Very strong article, plus there have been many other footballers that have at a similar level to Christian Walton without making a professional league appearance and their wikipedia page has not been deleted. (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.209.65 (talk) [reply]

Feel free to identify players who also don't meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and they can potentially be put up for deletion too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, the subject has not played in senior international football, as per criterion 1 of the footballer-specific notability guideline, nor has he played in a fully professional league, as required under criterion 2. I can't find enough non-trivial media coverage to suggest he passes the general notability guideline. It's a nice short article, and to reassure the creator in the event that the article is deleted, an admin can recreate it at the touch of a button as soon as Mr Walton makes his debut for Brighton or for another team in a fully pro league.

I took the liberty of signing, indenting and commentifying the Keep above, as it was made by the same editor as the previous one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTBALL requires a fully professional league. This subject seems to fail. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - such articles, which technically don't meet WP:NFOOTY, but we all know are likely to be recreated shortly are a huge waste of everyone's time. If it really must be deleted, then simply move it to draft until they've spent a few minutes on the pitch, instead of the bench. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify, this article currently does not meet ANY notability guideline. Recreation can easily be done once WP:CRYSTAL is no longer applicable. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation while in theory is simple, seldom actually is. Typically the article is recreated from scratch by another user unaware of the past history. Often no one bothers to restore the previous edit history. At a minimum, the duplicate editing is a waste of everyone's time. At worst, information is lost between one version and another of the article. Here we have a player, who is appearing on the bench every week of a top team in one of the top professional teams in the world, and we have people who are mindlessly following the "rules" and wasting everyone's time trying to delete the article, in complete violation of WP:NORULES and WP:COMMONSENSE. We see this mindless behaviour time and time again. And time and time again the article is recreated when the player finally gets off the bench. This is particularly is the case in the terms of keepers, who are typically not going to be tossed in for 5 minutes near the end of a match. Keeping the article around for a few weeks does WP:NOHARM. Deletion of the article in the future can easily be done if it becomes apparent that this player will never likely play. Nfitz (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be relevant had the player done anything of note. As he hasn't there isn't even much to restore. As has been noted countless times before WP is not a repository for people who might be notable, only those that are. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Suggesting fellow editors are mindlessly wasting everyone's time doesn't help, nor does exaggeration. We haven't got a player "who is appearing on the bench every week of a top team in one of the top professional teams in the world". What we have got, is a subject who is the third-choice keeper at an English mid-table second-tier club who only gets a seat on the bench if either of the two very competent keepers ahead of him, David Stockdale and Casper Ankergren, are unavailable, and an article with seven sources of which the only one that does more than list his name is the BHAFC website report of his moving to them from Plymouth 18 months ago. Struway2 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, Walton appears to have been named among the subs twice so far this season out of eight games...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I only checked a couple of recent games, and he was on bench for both. If he stops making bench appearances, or gets traded to a non-fully professional team then I wouldn't oppose deletion. Until then I think we can apply WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any need for the personal comments, Nfitz. The fact that somebody takes a different approach to you doesn't necessarily indicate that they're being mindless or failing to employ common sense. Firstly, if there is an issue with the process for recreation of articles, then it is that process that should be addressed, not the notability guidelines. Secondly, I actually sympathise with the idea that the notability guidelines for footballers might be a little too restrictive, but clearly it's useful to have a consistently applied cut-off point or there will be no limit to the articles that people can create on the basis of purely subjective judgements of notability. Currently a line is drawn when a player has played in a professional league, whereas you apparently feel that it should be enough for a player to have been selected as a substitute. If you want to push for a change to the guidelines to that effect, then start that discussion in the appropriate place and let me know. I'll happily support you. In the meantime, though, I'll continue to apply the guidelines on the basis that 1) they exist either through a consensus or the lack of an established conflicting consensus, and 2) players like Walton are not an unusual case that people might have failed to consider when they considered the guidelines, so I think it's safe to presume that they were consciously excluded. While I would not have excluded them myself, I don't feel that my personal opinion ought to supersede that of other editors, and I don't think it can be argued that my opinion is simply "common sense" when the broadly accepted guidelines suggest that it isn't. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clicriffhard unlike you, I haven't made any personal comments. Any comments I made were not directed at any individual. That doesn't mean that significant time isn't wasted on this issue. We went through this whole thing on several players at the start of the season back in March/April and almost with out exception each and every one of these players has since made a professional start (the exception being a J2 league player who has since been loaned to the J3, after only apearing in a cup game as a J2 player against a J3 team). There is a big systemic fail here. Nfitz (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine where you've found personal comments in my previous reply, nor how "mindless" can be anything other than personal whoever it's directed at, but never mind that. My point is that a better way to address a systemic problem is to address the system itself, rather than expecting editors to substitute their opinions for the guidelines arbitrarily. Assuming you read my post, you'll already know that I agree that players like Walton shouldn't be considered "non-notable" as in most cases it's only a relatively short time before that status changes (although it isn't hard to think of exceptions such as Liverpool's Jordan Rossiter), but they currently are considered non-notable and I'm quite happy to respect that. As I say, they aren't unusual cases that the guidelines might not have been intended to address, and I haven't seen any indication that people in general want an exception to be made. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead and I'll take it into account. Clicriffhard (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any personal comments in your previous reply? What about "I don't think there's any need for the personal comments, Nfitz.". How by definition is that NOT a personal comment. My use of "mindless" was speaking of the group as a whole - to assume otherwise is a violation of WP:FAITH. Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not a personal comment but a request for civility. As for "mindless", no assumption is necessary. You explicitly directed it at a class of people of which I'm a member - in your words, "people who are mindlessly following the 'rules' and wasting everyone's time trying to delete the article" - and even if it hadn't been personal with respect to me it would have been to the people it referred to. If you don't like the word "personal", feel free to subsitute "disparaging", "derogatory", "insulting", or any of the other synonyms listed under def. 2.1 here. With respect, I'm not going to spend any more time on this unless you want to discuss the actual issue at hand. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you are wasting people's time with nominations such as this. That's not a personal comment, that's an observation. We all know this article will be recreated within months. Yes, if you want to follow black and white rules, then it fails. But this isn't a black and white rule-based community. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bottom line is that this is a community based on consensus, but you're entitled to your opinion. All the best. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Nfitz, because it is only a matter of time before Christian Walton plays in a proffesional match and removing the article for it to be recreated in a few months or even less seems pointless. HarrisonS4433 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I must spend too long on AFD's. If I've seen one of these players survive an AFD it was a long time ago. The guidelines are there for a reason, I don't see any reason to circumvent them. Even if this one survives it'll just go up for AFD again. Allowing players who don't pass guidelines to stay on WP is just a slippery slope to allowing any player who might one day pass to keep a page. Szzuk (talk) 19:35, 19 September 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) 13:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Murphy[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Won national pageant from a significant sized country, that seems to always be sufficient?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when a Google Test only gives 31500 hits, including several namesakes, social media and doubles. The Banner talk 08:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor WP:BEFORE, I'm afraid.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a very poor argument to bring up when you disagree. The Banner talk 11:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an argument that 30,000+ google hits is a sign of lack of notability; but its not really a good argument by itself for notability either. Of course its actual articles about the subject that guide WP:GNG, and why this subject to be shown to be notable. You're going to "lose" this AfD so I'm fairly comfortable calling you out for being hasty with this nomination, in addition to others like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Chernova. I do really appreciate editors who ferret out bad non-notable BLPs for AfD, that is good work, but just nominating a bunch of national pageant winners wasn't really a cool move.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links included several namesakes. I did not look how many links belong to the contestant, but on checking I found out that it were only 252 unique hits. Still for all namesakes. And contrary to what you claim, I was not randomly nominating contestants. I did look up if they had an interesting number of Google hits and nominated the selectively the ones with low to very low numbers. The Banner talk 13:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it was not a great method here. I've spent a few minutes adding more cites to the article, I think you can withdraw the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still you have WP:ONEEVENT that is applicable. The Banner talk 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Don't even. There's no harm in saying "yeah I was wrong about this one, thanks for finding sources and improving the article."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I expect a sorry from you for ignoring the fact that there are so few sources and that she was known for participating in just one event. The Banner talk 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIG DIG DIG. Its ok friend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning a national beauty pageant is usually grounds for inclusion. Sources here and here and here suggests she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Growing consensus among who? The Banner talk 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a number of sources available and raw Google hit counts have nothing to do with our notability standard. I think beauty pageants are better characterised as awards than as a single event, and our guidelines are much more generous to people mainly known for winning an award. Hut 8.5 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, does not fails notability. Bdboyc (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another bad faith Nom. This nominator should be banned from making such nominations. Wholesale they are overwhelming to reply to. As expressed in other Noms I'm trying to chase, each of these are notable for two events, for this one; Miss Universe Ireland 2012 and appearance at Miss Universe 2012 pageant. Trackinfo (talk) 08:14, 13 September 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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Vezzoso[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now that I have added some additional sources, this one has an additional two beauty pageants she has participated in, finishing third in Miss United Continent and now is embarking on a publicized modeling career. Was that noted in your failure to find sources for "fails WP:GNG?" Did you really try? Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Addition of foreign language sources confirms that subject meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is evident from the sources provided within the article that this subject should exceed our general notability guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Eslaquit[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 7th runner-up of what? NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & |Why should I have a User Name?- No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the credentials can be verified, Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bearian. Source here and here and here. This source documents her being in Miss Universe pageant. Seems like articles are being put up for deletion, without going through the WP:BEFORE process.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I looked to add sources to this article, it is amazing how much coverage there is of the national event. I can't specifically source the two opinions requiring citation, maybe those don't belong in the article, but half the statement seems accurate, there is a part of the Nicaraguan people who do follow this closely. Trackinfo (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you please stop making personal attacks? The Banner talk 15:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a substitute for an WP:RFC/U. Let's drop the bad-faith accusations quickly please, until solid evidence in a more appropriate forum is presented. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fail to see how pointing out a pattern of unproductive time-wasting AfDs including this one constitutes any kind of "bad-faith accusation".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent AfD nominations of beauty
contestants by The Banner
Article	Nominator	Status (as of Sept 14)
Anastasia Chernova	The Banner	5 keep 0 delete
Sheillah Molelekwa	The Banner	1 keep 0 delete
Adrienne Murphy	The Banner	Keep
Tsakana Nkandih	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Celeste Marshall	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Winfrida Dominic	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Camila Vezzoso	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Farah Eslaquit	The Banner	3 keep 2 delete
Andrea Radonjić	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Ayako Hara	The Banner	4 keep 1 delete
Zhana Yaneva	The Banner	Keep
Marie-Noëlle Ada	The Banner	0 keep 0 delete
Laura Godoy	The Banner	2 keep 0 delete
Sara Chafak	The Banner	Keep
Lindsay Japal	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete
Abigail Hyndman	The Banner	Keep
Yéssica Mouton	The Banner	1 keep 1 delete 1 redirect
Laura Beyne	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Marcelina Vahekeni	The Banner	3 keep 1 delete 1 redirect

Comment. I see no evidence above of personal attacks. Wikipedia requires that steps be taken before nominating articles for deletion, such as taking "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It appears as if The Banner has been rapid-fire AfDing numerous articles without taking such steps (see chart). Perhaps it is done to advance a personal anti-beauty contestant agenda? As of Sept. 14, 2014, there have been numerous beauty contestant articles AfD-ed; as best I can tell, not one has resulted in a deletion decision, although many decisions are still pending. It appears to myself, Trackinfo as was noted here and Milowent as was noted here that these are bad-faith nominations, done without the requisite preparatory steps. These mindless and unnecessary nominations result in time-wasting fuss. My sense is The Banner should either be banned from editing or blocked from AfDing any articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice example from cherry picking as I have AfD'ed and prodded more beauty pageant contestants. But these ladies were removed. As this is inconvenient, mr. Tomwsulcer failed to add them to his list. It is also a nice example of overreacting by mr. Tomwsulcer demanding draconian measures to satisfy his WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 17:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Banner. If you have other AfDs yet undiscovered, one's you think are really worthy of deletion, by all means let us know. This wasn't cherry picking. These were just the ones I could find. Trackinfo (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The method I used when constructing the list, on right, was to choose every deletion nomination that Banner made, starting with today (Sept 14) and working backward until Sept 1 when Marcelina Vahekeni was nominated for deletion; I only chose beauty contestant deletion discussions; I did not skip over any; I did not cherrypick. In no instances, did I find a nomination with a majority of 'delete' votes or a vote to Delete. If there are AfD nominations for beauty contestants that you made and which resulted in a 'Delete' decision, please let us know. That's 19 deletion nominations over a two-week period with (so far) not one delete decision.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~Switch to neutral I am unpersuaded by arguments from precedent (which is basically Bearian's only argument), given that it's entirely possible that the precedent is not, in fact, in line with actual policy. ~~And that is, in my view, the case here: this contestant (and many others) easily faily WP:GNG and thus the articles should be deleted.~~ LHM^{ask me a question} 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain convinced that such pageants should be treated like reality programs are, with contestants being redirected to the main article, it's clear that there are multiple sources for the contestants. I'm still unconvinced that simply because there are sources, that an article is merited, particularly given WP:ONEEVENT, but am switching my recommendation to "neutral", based on the fact that I was mistaken about the lack of sources. I do, of course, reserve the right to renominate this article (and others) at a future date, using more apt reasoning than the current nomination presents. My apologies for not looking deeper into the sourcing before making my comments above. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:GNG? Sources here and here, her photo here and here, coverage here, article that her uncle died by killer bees, blurb here, photo here. Then there are sources in Spanish language news such as here and here and here and here. Clearly these sources add to notability. What Bearian and others are saying that any Miss Universe contestant will have so much media exposure, even from a relatively small country in terms of population such as Nicaragua, that these mass deletions of all Miss Universe contestants seems unwarranted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added an article about her from the Guatamalan paper of record a few days ago, she's clearly notable. There's much about there to show she meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 14 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Hara[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well there are many reliable sources at ja:原綾子. Ideally an editor fluent in Japanese can improve the article, but one can see she is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I don't speak any Japanese there do appear to be plenty of Japanese sources available, some from major media organisations. This ought to demonstrate notability and definitely goes beyond Facebook. Hut 8.5 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on past outcomes and growing consensus that Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable. Also, plenty of sources exist online that I found that she's known widely as a notable model, and was actually also in the Miss Universe contest. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nominator is making a wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. I've had to explain to the Nom the meaning of WP:Before and the meaning of bad faith. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop the personal attacks? The Banner talk 21:20, 13 September 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) 14:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Pinilla[edit]

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

Miss Supranational has been deleted at AFD. This person's only claim to notability is as winner of a pageant deemed non-notable. Although she competed in three other pageants and there are references for these, she did not win any of them, so fails the minimum criteria for a beauty pageant contestant now Miss Supranational has been declared non-notable and deleted at AFD. Mabalu (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 2 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - she might be notable enough, but right now there's not enough evidence of English sources. Can we userfy this page? Bearian (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to have it userfied to your space? TBH that doesn't sound too good that you can't find anything though... I think the point is that this person has only been a runner up in other pageants, but her only win is for a non-notable pageant, so she seems to fail notability criteria. Generally, being a runner up hasn't been considered good enough - it's a national title at the very least or nothing. Mabalu (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I got it: she was only a runner up in those other contests. Never mind. Delete. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current 'sources' don't meet WP:RS; searched using sweeps for international news, entertainment, fashion, didn't find much. If there are Spanish-language sources, well, then somebody who can speak Spanish should make a case for them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 13 September 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy PowerLine Model 35[edit]

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

nonnotable air gun model, no refs found discussing it. a redirect to Daisy may be acceptable, if it is mentioned there. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 1 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - It's not a terrible article but there's not much and I don't think redirecting is an option since it is not mentioned at the company's page and multiple searches failed to yield something significant. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Beam[edit]

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

Lack of notability. I don't think a TV appearance 4 years ago ensures notability ever after. Plainsong43 (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 1 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up - There's a brief deletion discussion that took place in 2010 on the article's talk. mol uɐɯ 13:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no claim of notability and I can find no evidence of notability. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 08:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Jagjit Singh Harkhowal[edit]

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

No reliable sources available about this person. The sources provided in the article are basically a couple of forum postings. Searches do not turn up anything better. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reliable source mentioned in our article is The Tribune, but that only mentions the subject in passing as someone who played a part in having a book printed. I can find no other sources and the article makes no claims that make notability likely. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Limousine[edit]

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

I guess this film does not comply with our movie notability guidelines. What do you think colleagues? Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article, although currently short, satisfies notability by having notable people involved (the writers, Clement and La Frenais). Independent coverage via the British Film Institute (external link). The JPS (typing on mobile, without access to regular symbols). 21:38, 8 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not one of the best known TV movies of all time, but there's sufficient coverage to pass GNG: People [1]; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [2]; Sarasota Herald-Tribune and affiliates [3][4][5]; The Age [6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And to answer your question, nominator... With due respects, I think you guessed wrong. Please re-read WP:NF and WP:GNG, and more specially WP:BEFORE and WP:NTEMP. This film may be 80s crappola, but it meets notability guidelines none-the-less. And there's WP:SEP and WP:IMPROVE. We expand stubs on notable topics... NOT delete them because it has not been done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you all think differently than me, I think the best thing will be to withdraw the nomination. Let us not lose more time here. (Those of you who wish may visit the last AfD discussion I opened to see if I nailed it this time. :-) Thanks and regards to all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator: Thank you for your withdrawal. Inspired by the WP:BEFORE of others above, I performed some work on the Sunset Limousine article, taking the 230 characters (39 words) stub that was nominated and easily expanding it to a 2534 characters (413 words) C-class article... a 10x expansion. Care to help devise a decent DYK? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:34, 11 September 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 a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Raymonda van der Veen[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable artist. References are all PR websites or the subject's own social media sites (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 2 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not seeing sources in Netherlands news, worldwide news, music-related news, even a non-filtered search doesn't yield much, the CNN 'source' has a message saying CNN did not verify the information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the subject's online fame and commercial success is spreading fast, so while her references are currently all online and of the "fan page" type, this article will surely get beefed up in coming months. I've already been into the article to cut away some of the fluff.--Videowilliams (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — Videowilliams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- so...not just yet. (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is rather sad, desperately trying to push a non-notable artist. Its main contributors, Ivana Raymonda van der Veen (talk · contribs), Qtroeno (talk · contribs) and Videowilliams (talk · contribs) are all single purpose accounts with a very obvious conflict of interest. In addition, it is a straight cut-and-paste job from the subject's own website ([7]) - even if she was notable, the article should be deleted as a copyright violation (talk) 15:08, 14 September 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. GB fan 16:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strathearn Station[edit]

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

References in no way support the information on the page the only two things that the references support is the geographic location and the location of its airstrip all of the rest of the information is therefore illagitimate and this is why the information must be removed or the page taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywfawttp (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 September 2014‎ created by GB fan 12:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be proven as to where all the information came from then abiding by the laws of Wikipedia the page should be taken down or all unsupported facts taken down. The website http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=247060&cmd=sp&st=SA&place=Strathearn&file=Strathearn.htm has is obviously automated (therefore it has incorrect information) and the website http://www.aeroclub.net.au/showao-4273-cfcd20.html has no relevance at all (It also has no information on it). Also all of the images are not properly referenced and therefore should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywfawttp (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, I found nothing to support all the facts asserted about the station. AlanS^talk 13:10, 2 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 10 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the sources weren't completely unreliable (and they are), it still wouldn't be notable. Frickeg (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R Elliott (Newcastle United)[edit]

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

This is useless disambiguation page. No one would ever search for "R Elliott (Newcastle United)" and nothing links here. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whatever~~ Keep This "Dynamic BBC Article" Re Republic Of Ireland (v Georgia) at one stage referred to the squad in the format: D Forde (Millwall), K Westwood (Sheffield Wednesday), S Given (Aston Villa), R Elliott (Newcastle United)...Not being familiar with many of the team I went through the ball-ache of searching/guessing the wiki pages. I figured it was in the spirit of wiki to create the links saving future readers the hassle I went through....unfortunately there are two R Elliott (Newcastle United)s...I don't pick the teams I just create the redirects... The current "Dynamic article" refers to squad member 16 Elliot and this article 21 Elliot . Stacie Croquet (talk)

It is simply not true that "No one would ever search for "R Elliott (Newcastle United)/R Elliot (Newcastle United)" - I did. It is a relatively common format to list to international footballers; the more such redirects, the more reader friendly is Wikipedia.All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer. I think there has been a degree of auto-pilot with the later votes. To me the usefulness of the redirect (and indeed even the disambig page had it actually been required) was self-evident, if granted, a little radical for the old-guard. Stacie Croquet (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry but this is one of the most ridiculous disambiguation pages I have seen in a long time. Giant Snowman 08:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to disambiguate, the surname in each case is spelled differently! A hat note in each article to avoid confusion would be better. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh!...well spotted R Elliott (Newcastle United) & R Elliot (Newcastle United) are now straight forward redirects...can we now drop or move onto.. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Stacie Croquet (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Daft disambiguation page, need I say more? IJA (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - useless disambiguation pages or implausible redirects, take your pick. A hatnote at the top of each page should suffice. Ansh666 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be obvious. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XMK (operating system)[edit]

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

No third-party sources are in the article, and none appear to exist. Non-notable. — Keφr 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—First, note that the Xilinx Micro Kernel turns up in several searches; that's not the XMK-abbreviated RTOS we're looking for. Best cite so far for this XMK is:

Tan, Su-Lim; Nguyen, Tran B. (21 August 2009). "Survey and performance evaluation of real-time operating systems (RTOS) for small microcontrollers". IEEE Micro. doi:10.1109/MM.2009.56. (subscription probably required, pdf on request). Compares 15 different RTOSs, but doesn't provide a whole lot of specifics.

I'll see what else I can dig up. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which looks like a headed section of a textbook. I do not think we should delete this article. James500 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! I googled on the snipped that was provided and found this, which duplicates the snippet exactly (aside from the cite). The single paragraph reads: 3.5.3 XMK XMK (eXtreme Minimal Kernel) [XMK] is an open-source real-time kernel that is designed to fit very small microcontrollers, yet be scalable up to larger systems. A minimal kernel configuration requires only 340 bytes of ROM and 18 bytes of RAM. TCP/IP support is provided by either lwIP or uIP. XMK is distributed under a 3-clause BSD license. If I had to guess, I'd say this was copied out of the book you found, and I can't say from this whether or not there would have been more in your book. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the last two sentences in GBooks. Nor does "3.5.3" appear in that book before that snippet. James500 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:07, 1 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual harvest greenhouse system[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY; deleted at AfD in 2007, then quickly recreated Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable marketting jargon. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 7 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantial coverage. Seems like marketing and puffery. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:29, 10 September 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 Army of the Pharaohs. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 19:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demoz[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Every reliable source cited in the article (the majority are unreliable) are about Army of the Pharaohs and notability is not inherited from the group. The majority of the article is only about Army of the Pharaohs, a redirect to the group would be proper. STATic message me! 18:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Army of the Pharaohs per nom's suggestion. I can't find coverage to indicate this person's notability independent of the group; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 16:46, 3 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 9 September 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; noting that article creator supports deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargava Rama Krishna[edit]

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

Article about an Indian musician that fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of any significant secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not meets general notable guidelines while failing to WP:MUSICBIO. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soon - As I could not meet general notable guidelines while creating this article and failed to WP:MUSICBIO.

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in literature[edit]

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

Strange combination of publishing dates and historical facts, completely unsourced. looks like WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting, well worked, and worthwhile. Sources and references can be requested; however as an overview of the subject it is useful...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really want to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but 'list of years' articles exist in most media forms here, including list of years in film, list of years in music, list of years in television and...several others, as found in this template, which is no different from those. I do not deny this needs sourcing, but that might be a simple manner of pulling out the highlight cite in each year and linking it. Nate • (chatter)
Keep To me it looks simply like a directory of "(year/century) in literature" articles, with some prose bits (so that it differentiates from solely a category). Sources can be extracted from the year/century articles per Mrschimpf. Non-partisan summaries with NPOV are not sythesis IMHO. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:54, 10 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A summary of other notable articles. Pburka (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forcefield Records[edit]

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

advertising and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not advertising and does not fails notability. Notable artists and notable distributors. May need references and expansion, but still notable. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The notability of their artists or distributor has no influence on the notability of the label. The Banner talk 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more references, but still notable for their large catalog. Bdboyc (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - As stated before: the artists signed by the label have no influence on the notability. It is the label itself that has to prove notability. The Banner talk 08:47, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Basically per nom's reply. Notability is not inherited. The vast majority of blue linked bands are to disambig pages. Only two go to actual bands, which seem to be of marginal notability themselves. There are no reliable independent sources about the record label, therefore the article fails the WP:GNG requirements. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable sources with non-trivial coverage; notability is not inherited from a few marginally bands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 16 September 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) 00:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Solomon[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated, lacks independent sources. The so-called "write up" in a bridal magazine is just a passing mention naming this singer who was performing at the time. Article has been tagged for notability and better sourcing since 2011 without improvement. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I share the experience of being unable to locate non-trivial coverage of Avraham Solomon in reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources or significant coverage; does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Journal (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. On their website are one issue in 2010 and then 1 other in 2011. Article claims that a third issue was published. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. (Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated). Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced article with no real claims of notability, a quick search does not bring up anything beyond the website and contributors/photographers plugging their own work for the magazine through blog posts etc. Mabalu (talk) 01:58, 14 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find the sort of sourcing that would establish notability here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 17 September 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. By and large, consensus is against keeping the article. I'm ignoring calls to redirect to draftspace (as the cross-namespace redirect would also be deleted), so obviously feel free to add an appropriate redirect once it's moved to the article namespace. slakr^\ talk / 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of film accents considered the worst[edit]

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

There's no need for Wikipedia to curate this rubbish into a formatted table. James^x12345 18:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Jamesx12345, do you have a more concrete rationale for this AfD nomination other than it being rubbish? I'm not a fan of the article either, but my opinion was not the prevailing one in the last AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article isn't a question that needed answering. Whereas List of films considered the best is an interesting question answered by a large number of respectable publications, this article relies mainly on a survey of "Scottish filmgoers", hence the bias towards Scottish accents. Whilst there are other sources out there as well, the topic is very "clickbaity", and would be best covered by Buzzfeed or some such site. James^x12345 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems aimed at content that clickbait sites would use - nothing inherently wrong with the content and might be fun to read, but far far from an encyclopedic purpose. Classifying performances by "worst accent" is not something regularly done, unlike, for example, categorizing films as worst ever, or worst overall performances by an actor. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redefine as English-language accents in film with different sections on different accents. I encourage editors to read the previous AfD discussion here to consider the subjectivity of such labeling, which needs more context than just being a list item. (E.g., Sean Connery speaks in a Scottish accent in his roles, not even trying in non-Scottish roles.) I think a broader scope would allow us to cover the evolution of accents and to note the worst (as well as the best) examples, depending on the source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is so unencyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is just not suitable for incusion on Wikipedia. Its non-encyclopedic and overly trivial. Also, I fear that it may be n violation of WP:indiscriminate as there are no standards regarding inclusion and it could potentially be swamped by every actor or actress criticized for having a particularly bad accent. Also, as an unrelated sidenote one of the first sources I found while researching the term "accents considered the worst" was a Reddit thread joking about the existence of this article [8]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant section of Draft:English-language accents in film, contingent on the draft being moved to the mainspace. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has potential to be an interesting and amusing list -- but that isn't what Wikipedia is about. Whether or not a given performance should be included is far too subjective, even if multiple references are cited, especially since sources are likely to be cherry-picked (i.e., people will tend to decide who they want on the list and then google for justification). - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic of bad accents in films being covered in multiple reliable sources., IE: discussed in Huffington Post 1, Huffington Post 2, Woman's Day magazine, Empire (via the BBC), Empire again, St. Joseph News-Press, Sunday Mail, Daily Record Chicago Tribune 1, BBC News 1, BBC News 2, Los Angeles Times, Times-Picayune, Chicago Tribune 2, British Film Institute, Time Magazine, The Daily Mail, The Guardian 1, The Guardian 2, BBC, Metro, and numerous books. WP:DONTLIKEIT is not the criteria here. A topic's being considered worth coverage in multiple reliable sources is. This topic meets notability criteria for WP:LISTN, WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPURP, despite personal opinions offered here that the topic is garbage. We are to look beyond editors calling a topic crap and look to see if it is actually notable per our guidelines... and this one is. Any issues with how a notable topic is presented would call for cleanup through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (changed to redirect. See below) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an idea is covered in reliable sources and may even be notable doesn't mean it should have an article. The point about this list is that is it is indiscriminate information since it is grouping several different possible sources to highlight the worst accents in films, a mish-mash of information that is strictly an opinion. It really is not encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... not indiscriminate, as inclusion is set by the defining term "film accents considered the worst", and not our opinions but those of reliable sources offering their own judgement and expertise. All we need do is list and properly cite. We have articles on some of the silliest or most imaginary things, all based upon the fact that reliable sources outside these unreliable pages have decided the topic is worthy of discussion. Seems to be exactly the description set by WP:N. We do not set ourselves as arbiters of what reliable sources choose to cover, or do we truly have that much chutzpah here now? As for "encyclopedic", neutral presentation of information is a matter for editing, as the words of WP:NOTPAPER tell us that even totally bogus topics are allowed as long as the information is well and properly sourced. For instance, even if totally imaginary, coverage of the idea of the Tooth Fairy makes the topic verifiable, and it has a well-sourced "encyclopedic" article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fully agree with MichaelQSchmidt. The delete !votes here are a species of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and, to a considerable extent, this article has also been impacted by editing practices that rise out of the same dislike of the topic. But Wikipedia can and should exist for different audiences. This subject is discussed in scholarly works as well as the popular media and it should have a place here as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What scholarly sources? All at the present time are newspapers and magazines. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through them all, but a search for "bad film accents" shows the topic is discussed in a scholarly manner. Their not being used does not make them imaginary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see discussions of film accents - for better or worse - as part of film studies articles but no outright identification of specific "bad" accents. Now, if the article was more addressing concepts like accents used to stereotype characters and noting some bad instances of them (eg [9] would be a source for that), then maybe there's something. But I see nothing in the scholarly aspect to point out specific examples of the worst accents in films. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I must have missed it in reading WP:Identifying reliable sources, but can you direct me to the portion of guideline that states sources are acceptable toward determining notability only when they are scholarly?? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the first AfD: Second Dialect Acquisition (Cambridge University Press, 2010) discusses bad acting accents and mentions some of the websites that collect them (as well as a brief mention of a Wikipedia article!) [10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, there's examples there, but I still take it that a better article could be written about film accents used to portray stereotypes (for better or worse) and then include some examples as part of it; that would be much more natural inclusion of the list than this as standalone. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And not listed above, we also have Variety, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times As was spoken of several times, I think a re-naming, re-focus, and expansion would be fine. But flat out deletion? Nope. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete in part due to the issue with wp:indiscriminate. Yes, I'm aware that media sources exist, but if this article is kept then it will just become a list of every time a media source disliked the accent of a particular actor or actress. Furthermore, articles such as "worst hair styles in film", "worst costume in film", and "worst performance in film" could all be given articles since a multitude of reliable sources exist for these as well. These articles are little more than an indiscriminate collection of celebrity gossip, and should not exist. (In addition, this article will likely run into problems with WP:SYN if expanded). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as editors refrain from writing anything not covered in sources, the WP:SYNTH is not ours. And with respects, WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is a bit of a straw man, as Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues, should they occur. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate from my comment in the previous AfD discussion, "...the point has been raised that the sources that list such accents are not good enough. WP:NEWSORG states, 'When taking information from opinion content (added bold), the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.' In terms of making a 'best' or 'worst' judgment, we need better than what we have here. I've noticed that there is inconsistency in listing some films. For example, Sean Connery and the use of his Scottish accent has been judged in different ways. This kind of thing to me suggests that we need to be appropriately neutral per WP:NPOV and engage in explanation and attribution, which ultimately defeats the purpose of this list." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The inclusion of all of these list items is subjective, based on the opinions of non-notable magazine writers. Secondly, this list is not notable: WP:Notability means impact. Thirdly, the criteria for inclusion are too vague, even arbitrary. "Considered the worst by a consensus of film critics or audiences"? What percentage constitutes a consensus? Who are these film critics and audiences? I guess a fourth point: although it is published in BBC, the source is this poll, which is an unreliable poll. --Gccwang (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Blargh29's brief essay. As the topic of accents in films HAS received recognition, discussion, and commentary outside of Wikipedia in magazines, newspapers, books, and scholarly studies over a many-years period, we might consider that when reliable sources (ie: sources with editorial oversight and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy) decided to allow their staff to write such articles for wide publication, it has the "WP:IMPACT" Blargh29 writes about. Information best presented as prose and attributed to its source and, rather than a list, in a article on the topic of movie accents (both good and bad)... for interested Wikipedia readers... and not disinterested Wikipedia editors. Erik made some good points about how to redefine this sourcable topic so it might be best presented. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really think that we must consider additional criteria other than whether it was published and who published it. A news agency can publish soft pieces that are for amusement purposes only -- a cat stuck in a tree, the winners of the father-daughter dance-off, a local 86 year old housewife making jam. These stories were published/aired not because the subject matter has impact (will be remembered or have an effect on many people for years) but because newspapers are also in the business of entertainment. We assume too much in saying that the editorial staff found it to be an important subject simply because it was published. They may have found it to be an entertaining subject, for a brief amusement. --Gccwang (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really??? Pardon, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria... it's a censorship. Topic notability within Wikipedia is based entirely upon if the information offered our readers was published and where and by whom. You may not like the topic, but Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors. Did you actually read any of the multiple offered sources? Please go study WP:NRVE. Variety writes about its industry, not about cats-in-trees. Los Angeles Times is not about old ladies making jam. New York Times is not about winners of a local father-daughter dance-off. Time Magazine is not writing about cats in trees. BBC News is not writing about ladies making making jam. Daily Mail is not about winners of a local dance-off. BBC News survey shows the topic as having wide interest. That the topic of film accents has been discussed in so many sources over so many years shows WP:IMPACT and pokes holes in your incorrect theory that interest in the topic is a "brief" blip. Using imaginary comparisons rather than discussing the actual sources and what they offer our readers is decidedly unhelpful. Better here to discuss how this widely covered topic can be presented per policy and guideline, not deleted per a WP:PPOV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every newspaper you mentioned: LA Times, NY Times, Daily Mail, as well as Time and BBC, as general news sources, will publish human interest stories, whether on a local scale (for the newspapers) or otherwise, either to fill space or just offset a lot of bad news. This is SOP at nearly all such sources. This does not invalid them as sources, but we have to be aware of the difference between legit news and opinion, and something that's there to fill space, and lists like these exist mostly for the latter. Variety is the only exception here as it is an industry magazine for Hollywood, so it has a more specific purpose. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time then to report LA Times, NY Times, Daily Mail, as well as Time and BBC, to WP:RSN for being sources that "must" be seen as failing WP:RS because of an "SOP" to publish "general news"... or because they made an editorial decision to cover the topic of film accents for several decades. Imagine Wikipedia having several hundred thousand articles sent to AFD for relying on such "poor" sources. Wow. Personally, I find it quite difficult to ignore existing policy and guideline, and no doubt a closer will base a decision upon an even application of guideline and policy based arguments. Of course, admins at WP:DRV generally make it a point to do just that. And I am awaiting a response to Erik's suggestion toward a re-naming and a re-focus, creating an article rather than a list. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started Draft:English-language accents in film. Will add in history, culture, and accents considered the best or worst. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now THAT'S how we build an encyclopedia. THANK YOU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they are no longer reliable, but just that we have to be aware they will publish filler stories alongside real ones, and so we have to evaluate such stories case by case. The arguments here is that the most of the sourcing here is presently such filler. They are still valid sources to meet WP:V if part of a larger targe, but we don't base article inclusion solely on such stories. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proper section of Draft:English-language accents in film. Struck my keep above in acknowledgement and appreciation of a solution that meets guideline and policy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considered ^{[by whom?]}? Seriously people, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment in the last discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorg Janke[edit]

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

Janke's company already has an article. His biography just rehashes information found in Compiere. Possible merge and/or redirect Vycl1994 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 15 September 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. Delete G12. Foundational, and from a source that predates the article by six years. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Peterson Robinson-Edgar[edit]

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

Articles target fails to appear to meet WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a pretty close copy of this obituary. Also, the pic may have copyright problems too. ubiquity (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Banko-Stewart[edit]

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

Lack of WP:RS in article, and after searching, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV found. Appears to fail WP:NACTORS & WP:GNG as I failed to find any independent coverage regarding roles she appeared in. Roberticus talk 13:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 3 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:38, 8 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:49, 15 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elle (sport)[edit]

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

Unsourced: fails to prove itself notable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sport is notable enough. Article needs substantial development and referencing. --Amble (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The important question is not whether the article proves notability, but whether the topic is actually notable. A cursory attempt at WP:BEFORE shows that it is. I have added a reference to an academic source, and here are some others confirming that this is a major sport in Sri Lanka: [11][12][13]. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several sources I found suggest that elle (el lay) is the national sport of Sri Lanka. The article, of course, needs a lot of work, but that is a question of editing, not deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chamberlin[edit]

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

Alleged be having some success as an artist (well, at least, putting a high value on his paintings) but the awards aren't at all major and the press attention is fleeting (for example gong out with a well known woman, being profiled in a list of several West End artists). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Sionk (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 7 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:36, 8 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no sources that show subject meets WP:ARTIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo (software)[edit]

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

Fails notability. Created by someone with WP:COI. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. Marked for {{unreferenced}} since 2011 and {{notability}} since 2013. SmileBlueJay97 talk 02:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:57, 1 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Django (2014 film)[edit]

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

Short film from new writer director. Dubious notability. Refused Speedy. Reads like an advertisement. Perhaps in a decade or two. Scope Ceep (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NF. Should not be confused with the other Django a Japanese short film of 2014. Userfy upon request, but AUTHOR should be sent to MOS:FILM to learn style and WP:NF to understand what shows a film as notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering to start an AfD discussion myself. Clearly fails WP:NF. Cavarrone 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to prevent deletion? I did not understand what you meant by 'reads like an advertisement'. The article is objective. The film has actually been screened in a lot of festivals around the world, the article only cites some. By the way, the Japanese film has been released a lot later than this one, and its original name is not 'Django', but 'Sansurai no jango'. Iamcool2014 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamcool2014: Yes we do understand that the Japanese film has a different original title, but its 'Django' is searchable for a 2014 film for its being an Anglification of that Japanese title. And yes, the festival citations show this one has screened, but merely having screened (existence) in not the same as notability. To prevent deletion, we need need articles in independent and reliable sources offering commentary about the film itself. See WP:SIGCOV. Bring some forward and I would gladly reconsider my opinion. And PS: The term "reads like an advertisement" is a poor argument that speaks toward a perception of and often addressable article tone and style (happens often with articles created in good faith by new editors), and addressable concerns are rarely a decent reason to delete. Please refer to MOS:FILM to see that current article format is problematic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:51, 14 September 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. Ekabhishek^talk 05:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart shoe[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Completely new company or start up with no notability. scope_creep 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This company is new and appears completely not notable and fails WP:N. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, I admit, I think this is a pretty dumb product enjoying its 15 minutes. But even if I can't be interested in a vibrating shoe, that's really not the test. The test is whether other people do and whether they do it in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. When those sources include Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, I have to concede, that's really all it takes. Msnicki (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is warping WP, totally. It's a brand new company less than 2 weeks old. It is simply not notable, at any level. On top of that it's asserting WP:NOTADVERTISING which itself breaks WP:N. Also, both WSJ and Forbes, list any company which get tier 1 or 2 seed funding in any country that is a trade partner of America. To paraphrase in the Glaswegian, If some company invented a new way to shovel sh't, and it got investor funding, WSJ and Forbes would document it, that doesn't mean anything. If it turns out to be no consensus, I'll need to be escalate it up the chain, because all it is is turning WP into an add platform and directory. scope_creep talk 17:06 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. Plainly an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, because if he claims that this fails WP:ORG, I can only respond that he has no idea what WP:ORG says -- the very first sentence of the guideline is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Forbes and the Wall Street Journal count. The nom may "escalate" all he likes, but he might be startled to find that AfD has no appeals process. From a nom who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this degree of misunderstanding is inexplicable. Ravenswing 09:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that's really crass and totally unfair, and sarcastic to make the same comment on several Afd, they don't add to the debate and make you look incoherent. Personnel attacks are so contemptible. The reason I've been voting so many Afd, Prods and Speedy Deletes is because WP is slowly but surely becoming a corporate directory, which the vision of the original certainly didn't envisage, and which is slowly subverting it. As for each of these articles, I think personally that each of them is non notable. Most of them were Afd;d because I believe each of them are non notable. In each instance, I've checked each sources, in Google, GBooks, Bing, Maps, Google Earth, Google Translate and Enc. Brit,Columbia, and all of them didn't show clear notability. Only afterwards, does real sources show. As regards the above, it's non clearly WP:GNG. It's a month old company, using WP as an advertising platform, to sell it's products. Plain and simple. Any marketing company/PA primary purpose is to get the customer into WP. It's wholly non-notable. 5 years ago. The notability guidelines are just that, guidelines. Nobody is forcing you to the Afd. Why not push off. scope_creep talk 15:55 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Ahem. "Why not push off?" is not the response one would expect from someone who believes others are being "crass" or "unfair." That being said, you have been on Wikipedia far too long not to get the basic premise about notability we expect any newcomer to understand: that "notability" does not mean "I think it's important," but that the subject meets our guidelines and policies regarding notability and verifiability. If you don't like the GNG or the various subordinate notability criteria, then seek to change them at their talk pages. AfD is not the venue for that, and it is certainly not the venue for obvious and blatant misrepresentations of those criteria.
As far as this particular subject goes, you're just plain offbase. The article creator's been on Wikipedia for three and a half years, and he's got over six thousand edits. He plainly has broad interest in India-based topics, which comprise the overwhelming number of his edits. If you're going to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and accuse him of being a paid shill for this company (an accusation that judging from your recent AfDs you toss around quite often and very casually), you had better have some evidence to back it up. Where is that evidence, please? Ravenswing 23:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a "smart technology footware" a historical invention. It is neither about a company or person, Except in hostory section one cannot find any company name and I think that is reasonable because atleast readers should know who invented the product first. Infact to avoid the article to look like a promotion or advertise I did not mention the inventors names, more over to make it more reliable I choosed the sources that focus on "invention" and not on company or inventors. Any way you all know much more about WP policies and hope fair justice will be done to article and due to some personal schedule I could not respond instantly so please bare/excuse me for late reply. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GOLDEN RULE ~KvnG 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Adli Bin Dato' Mohd Tahiruddin[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates any possible notability. An A7 was declined. . DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the A7 because the article suggests enough significance that I thought PROD or AfD would be more fitting, but as far as notability goes I can find no sources to suggest notability and I agree the subject is non-notable. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You have to drop the Bin and the Dato' from the subject's name to find the full range of sources, like this. But it's obviously still insufficient for notability purposes. The subject is obviously a fairly senior figure within the youth wing of Malaysia's governing party, but that kind of position is not enough for notability, especially in the absence of significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions) in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Mylonas[edit]

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

Article on an assistant professor at George Washington University in DC. Mylonas has an h-index of 3. Deprodded by the article creator, user:Maimonidesdc, who has only worked on this article and Nation-building (in order to add Mylonas prominently into that article). Abductive (reasoning) 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—h-index is of limited use in the humanities. Looking at the subject's cv I'd be comfortable with notability via WP:ACADEMIC (40 conference presentations, 40+ invited talks). Alternative is WP:AUTHOR. His Politics book is held in 200+ libraries and has received substantial reviews in the journals Südosteuropa, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, and Nationalities Papers. (CNA appears have reviewed it as well, but I'm not quite sure who they are.) From where I'm sitting, all this looks like a significant impact in his field. What am I missing? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is that there are 2 million professors in the world, and they have all published something. Abductive (reasoning) 00:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. But few of them manage 40 conference presentations and 40 invited talks before they go up for tenure. Changing to keep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I consider him a respected and notable author based on his awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning author, likely meets criteria by Author or Academic credentials as noted above. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Peter Katzenstein Book Prize" is "awarded annually to to an outstanding first book". This means it is for newbies, not respected elder scholars in a field. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; probably not yet notable A single book and a few papers (only 3 are in established journals) does not bring tenure at any first rate university. I use the evaluation of the true experts in a subject as the standard of notability, instead of inventing my own. h index is irrelevant in this subject one way or another, and so I would conclude not notable yet by WP:PROF. The question is whether there is notability as an author. It would depend on the single book. Looking at WorldCat I see 212 holdings; the book was published in 2012, and it on a popular subject--so this is only medium importance. There are the usual reviews. We can call them substantial or not as we choose. It would seem to come down to the importance of the prizes. The Katzenstein Prize "recognizes an outstanding first book in international relations", [14] and this is the first award of it. An award for "first book" s essentially a journeyman award, to recognize dan author of developing importance. The European Studies Book Award [councilforeuropeanstudies.org/grants-and-awards/book-award] Award, is an established reward, but it also is for "first book". Awards , especially unfamiliar awards need to be checked for importance. Given two separate prizes for best first book, a case could be made for notability, but I would prefer to see it recognized by his university. (If it were one award only, I would have said plain Delete, not weak delete. One of the arguments against accepting notability of Assistant Professors is that such articles are apt to be tinged with a little bit of promotionalism, whereas if we were going by encyclopedic importance, we would be writing articles first on the senior and most distinguished scholars. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although I don't usually modify my !votes with "weak", I think DGG's reasoning is spot-on. Regarding the discussion higher-up in the thread, I'll note that conference presentations are standard academic fodder and do not indicate notability. (In fact, too many on a CV raises doubts for some tenure committees.) Regarding "invited talks", these are spotty, i.e. most will not represent a keynote lecture. Lots of professors list job talks on their CV as being "invited", so it is not unusual to see a dozen or two of these on a CV. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding on to what Agricola44 says, I routinely remove all listings of conference presentations and symposium publication from articles on academics, except in those field of engineering where they are the most important means of communication, or where there's evidence that it actually was significant. In most fields I likewise usually remove book chapters (except for some esoteric areas of the humanities where it's a major means of publication). What counts in the humanities is widely read books; in the sciences, widely cited articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:- I agree with Lesser Cartographies and awards won by the subject makes him notable although it was for a newbie. It just touches borderline of notability for me.Ireneshih (talk) 14:52, 8 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added reference to two reviews of his book The Politics of Nation Building -- one in CHOICE, and an exceptionally long one in Journal of Modern Greek Studies. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 8 September 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 snow keep. I don't think there's any point in continuing the discussion. As for Dirtlawyer1's move suggestion, RM is thataway. Deor (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Ecker[edit]

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

No sources and very little information. bojo1498 talk 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. He played 40 games in the NFL, according to NFL.com; WP:NGRIDIRON only requires one. Nuff said. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirm that Ecker played four seasons in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Sources should be added to article, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Pile-on WP:SNOW vote. Subject clearly satisfies the specific notability guideline for American football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in 48 regular season NFL/AAFC games in five seasons. A quick key word search of Newspapers.com and Google News Archive suggests that the subject probably satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, too (which is why we have specific notability guidelines that usually yield the same outcome as a full-blown GNG analysis). How did the AfD nominator get this one so wrong? Well, for starters, the article is mis-titled: per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be "Ed Ecker," the name by which the subject was most commonly known during his NFL playing career, not his birth name, "Enrique Edward Ecker." His mama may have called him Enrique, but the American sports media never did. This article should be moved to the COMMONNAME immediately upon conclusion of this RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The International School at ParkCity[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Already speedy deleted three times. Article is promotional, with no references. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is almost no information here, and certainly nothing to suggest notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is a mess, but after digging thorough the school's website, I found references to a secondary school section. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see nothing promotional in the article. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on Malaysian schools in English. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the long-standing consensus mentioned above, which presumably exists to foster a logical vehicle on Wikipedia for the defamation of teachers and classmates. There seem to be sources that can at least verify basic details, such as [15]. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:05, 13 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7 ความรัก[edit]

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

This unsourced article about a film provides no evidence that the film is notable. The text calls it "Six Affection", but the title translates to "Seven Affection", so I'm not sure exactly how to search for sources or evidence of notability, but it is unlikely that an independent film with a budget of $5,112 is notable unless there were extraordinary circumstances. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no references, no indication of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubiquity (talk • contribs)
Delete: no evidence of notability, confusion re title (6 or 7?). 17:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (Accidentally unsigned comment by PamD (talk · contribs))
Delete - Google tells me it's "7 Love", Bing tells me "7 consummate" ... We could be here for sometime attempting to guess the bloody name! .... I don't mean to sound like a dick but it would've helped if the creator gave some sort of lead to the actual name of the film.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage link on Love takes me to th:ความรัก, and the symbols match up with the article in question. mol uɐɯ 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The same article was also deleted from Thai wiki th:7 ความรัก. Still a film project. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Divorce - Unremarkable, (relatively) low-budget film without coverage in reliable sources. Did not win any awards. It doesn't help that its Thai Wikipedia equivalent has also been delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 12 September 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of apps with Chromecast support[edit]

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

Chromecast has reached such a wide adoption rate, that, according to Google at this year's I/O conference, there are approximately 10,000 apps that support Chromecast now. As a result, this article will never be comprehensive: not every single app will make an announcement that they have incorporated Chromecast support, not will every app be well-known enough to even receive coverage. This will be a burden to maintain as more and more apps add support, or heaven forbid, subsequent app releases drop support. Google already maintains an official list of supported apps here Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Disclosure: I'm the article's creator). Google's own list is non-comprehensive and excludes a number of major apps: EZcast and Artkick to name two. Any list similar to this is, naturally, never going to be exhaustive. But I feel the same complaint could be levied at many of the lists at Category:Lists of software and I didn't think that issue alone was enough to warrant deletion. - Wezzo (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Y2kcrazyjoker4 deleted this table from the main Chromecast article in June, without any new discussion in the TALK tab, with the reason given that "Wikipedia users unfortunately cant be the gatekeepers for every app that has been patched to work with Chromecast - their website now handles that responsibility." Google's official Chromecast page does list many apps that are compatible with the device, but not all of them. Not hardly! Since the deletion of the apps table from the main article a few months ago, I have been hoping for a spun-off article EXACTLY like this. Others have too, as seen in comments made over the months in communities such as Reddit. I've just added two recent apps to the table (WatchABC and NPR One), even as it was nominated for deletion less than an hour after being made. WHY? Y2kcrazyjoker4 and others with his (or her) opinion are not harmed by the existence of an article such as this, and others - like me - are glad to have the opportunity to maintain it, add as many apps as possible to it, and find it useful via Wikipedia's long tradition of community-based information sharing. Why suppress it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.40.193 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Just because I don't necessarily think this is worthy of an encyclopedia article doesn't mean I am trying to "suppress" information. The article is certainly informative, but then again, so would something like "List of websites written in Java". At some point, though, a list borders on WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule you cite, in full, is that "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." This article is not a repository of any of those things. It is an informative list of what apps are available for the Chromecast device, and what platforms those apps are compatible with (i.e., "is it made only for Android, or also for iOS devices?"). You ask me to assume good faith; I would ask you to assume in good faith that the goal of this article is to make Wikipedia a better and more informative place. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, it's just that I'm unclear on how the article's deletion could possibly improve Wikipedia; so far you've offered vague indications that such an article is simply not Wikipedia's mission. It seems to me (and to the article's creator; see what he said above) that it is. The "not a repository" rule is not an effective reference, as it apparently doesn't apply to this sort of list (or, if it does, then articles such as "List of Sega Genesis Games" and the MANY items comparable to it should also be nominated for deletion!). - 74.177.40.193 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even that Chromecast has reached such a wide adoption rate, its very hard for a normal user to find apps wich supporting Chromecast. Okay, you have some of them in Google Play, but they are more adapted for the public in US. For minor countries like Sweden, you dont find apps who are supporting Chromecast in Googles "top list". So I recommend to keep this article for at least one year, when Chromecast probably is more established. For now on, its a big help to find new apps. //Joshua06 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. - Thanks to both Dr. Blofeld and Kaayay for there huge improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aangan[edit]

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

Non notable film. Unreferenced, even IMDB has no info about it Gbawden (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. Imdb doesn't even have entries for some of the articles User:Crisco 1492 has at FA. This would have plenty of sources in Hindi in old newspapers off the web and has a notable director and cast so I don't see why we should delete it. Coverage on the web isn't great but that's the case for a lot of these older non English films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "IMDB has no info on it" is not a valid deletion rationale. In this case, it's not even correct. As for there being offline sources: I agree. It's going to be a hell of a thing to show though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Sourcing films like these are near impossible and films pre 1980 aren't exactly the easiest ones to source neither, I'd imagine if the nom looked hard enough he would come up with a few!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with grateful thanks to Dr. Blofeld for putting his edits behind his words. Well done. Article is no longer "unsourced". Perhaps the nom will withdraw. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - With thanks to Dr Blofeld for vastly improving this article Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 9 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Asamoah-Hassan[edit]

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

Non notable person, being President of the GLA doesn't make her notable Gbawden (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well for Ghana she's notable, what she's not though? Not only for being previous GLA president but this is a move to create Wikipedia biographies for notable Ghanaian librarians. After all this is a stub and will be expanded. What you say Gbawden? →Enock4seth ^(talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources. See for example [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable academic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality and the content of the sources provided by Aymatth2 clearly indicate that she is notable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BASIC and is notable for being president of the Ghana Library Association and a UNESCO Memory of the World Programme committeewoman. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:35, 14 September 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.

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

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. In closing this discussion, I have read all of the comments below, and taken them all into account. There were some very good points on both sides, however, there is no question that the child is notable - Wikipedia's policies on notability make this clear. The strongest argument against keeping the article was Hebel's argument, succinctly put as "What if, due to some tragic set of circumstances, it is not born?". In such a terrible eventuality, we would probably have to have another discussion as to the best way to deal with the article (renaming for example). However, it would not be right to assume such an eventuality, and in any case, the child would still be notable. I think the next step is for those involved to agree on a title (and possibly agree on a pronoun...) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was one of the users who supported the retention of the article about Prince George while he was still a foetus. Retaining it made sense because there was a lot written in it and a lot more to be written about its subject. That is not the case here. All we have is a pregnancy announcement, which hasn't drawn nearly as much "immediate and worldwide attention" as the first pregnancy. This pregnancy is not as constitutionally important, as the CNN noted. The ship may have sailed already, but I don't think we should set a precedent for articles about any royal/celebrity pregnancy. The main point, however, is that this is not an article about the "second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". It is an article about a pregnancy announcement. Its purported subject is not [yet] notable. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the last one, the title of this article seems rather presumptious/ inaccurate. How convoluted would the grammar have to be if a subsequent announcement of twins, without any indication of gender, is made? Or has this possibility been ruled out already? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official announcement reads "second child". DrKiernan (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite clear then/. So we are left with the issue of "foetus notability". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion A foetus is not yet a child. What if, due to some tragic set of circumstances, it is not born? Therefore I would argue merging it's contents with the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and abandon this one altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to keep and let the article develop - we expect it to end up as an article on a notable person, and even now the fact of the pregnancy (and hence also the unborn child in question - even if it is never born) is notable. But it would also be reasonable to have this as part of the article on the mother; my opinion on the matter is not particularly strong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (As article creator). I fully understand that it is an unusual subject and a reasonable thing to bring to AfD - I bear no malice against this deletion notice. This was my edit summary when I first created the article: Creating article about William and Catherine's 2nd Child. I am aware WP is 'not news' and this child is not even born, but this IS a 'Notable' person and WILL be created sooner or later. When in doubt IAR.

I agree that at present the sources are about the announcement (and not the baby per-se) but I disagree that the article will not rapidly gain significant amounts of content as the world media creates a flurry over every tiny detail (I make no moral judgements about this media-circus, it's just a fact) from this moment on. The baby will not be the direct heir to the throne but, when born will be 4th which is still constitutionally significant (just not as significant as its elder brother). I suspect the child will have a lifetime of learning that it is "not as significant" as it's brother... but that's a different point! :-) I agree that no precedent should be set for "famous foetuses" and there are several policies that could be used against this article including "Not News", "Crystal ball" or perhaps even some sub-section of the BLP policy - see also the original successful deletion debate about the foetus that eventually became prince George. However, as per my edit summary, I think this is a legitimate and necessarily rare case of IAR. There WILL be ongoing media-coverage about this subject and whether we want to scope it as an "event" article about the pregnancy or a "biography" article about the child there will eventually be an article here - it's just a matter of whether the article exists now, or is re-created later. At worst, this is an article of currently-questionable notability that will become increasingly notable over the next few months. Even taken at this lowest threshold, I see no benefit to the Encyclopedia to deleting an article that is most certainly going to be recreated in 9 months or less.

As regards the discussion of the possibility that the foetus does not reach full-term, then in such terrible circumstances the coverage and long-term historical interest in that "event" would most certainly warrant a WP article. Not a nice discussion to have, but it would be "notable" either way. Witty lama 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or moving it to something like: "Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge". Deleting it, and moving the contents to Catherine's (and William's) articles has my preference however, as I stated above. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know (nor is it our business really) how many times in her life she's been pregnant (unless "second pregnancy" has been officially stated, like "second child" has been). W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Second pregnancy of Kate Middleton since she became Duchess of Cambridge"? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KISS. That title is a bit of a mouthfull. "since she became" is not needed as she was not pregnant before. She is no longer called Middleton, that was her surname prior to marriage. Martin451 15:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say "this IS a 'Notable' person", but I think this rather depends on whether or not one sees a foetus as "a person". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one doesn't, then it's a notable foetus. A notable subject, simply. One that reliable sources write about. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, W. P. Uzer - I'm not trying to make philosophical claims about what the definition of "a person" is, all I mean is that the foetus at the centre of this debate, once born, will without-question have their own WP biography. The question on this deletion debate is since we know that fact, how early is too early to create the article :-) Witty lama 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:BLP apply here? Or only to its mother? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside... I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in countries like the Netherlands and Spain, a foetus is already in line to the throne and can even succeed to the throne while still in the mothers womb! If it is stillborn afterwards it will be considered as having never existed! There have been examples. John II of France and Alfonso XIII of Spain! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. But is it agreed that it's not a child, and so the article title is misleading? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open to suggestions as to the title of the article - obviously it would need to be changed later on anyway when the child is named/receives an official title. I don't think we need to get hung-up on semantics though for the purposes of this debate here. Witty lama 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans, yes that is my opinion. Wittylama, I suggested "Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge", or something like that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's not a child, but even if it's not - something doesn't have to exist yet (or exist at all) to have an article about it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that sure that a foetus is a child in all stages of it's fruition, but that's an other matter altogether. One which we preferably shouldn't get into here. Neither should we get in to (at least not here) the question whether non existing entities deserve an article on Wikipedia. The pregnancy after all is not non-existing. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:GNG Even though the child (or children) has not been born yet, it is generating significant worldwide coverage, and will do for the next six of so months. The Duchess is suffering from Hyperemesis gravidarum which is why the pregnancy was announced early, adding to the notability. Betting companies are already taking bets[21] as to the child's name, sex, eye colour, age at birth, weight etc. Martin451 15:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha. Not always the best criterion for article creation. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have an idea- why not create an article about the Duchess's Hyperemesis gravidarum? This article is a terrible quality article and I don't think an announcement is enough for the keep. The article is one big IF. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Vote I am not sure what I am supposed to say to prove this is not a vote but at the moment I am neutral on this as we may get more info about the newborn but then again we might not. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: The article creator says that "there WILL be ongoing media-coverage about this subject..." Why not wait until there is media coverage? I, for one, doubt there will ever be enough to warrant an article. The article about George was created a month before his birth, not seven months before the birth like this one. Within days of creation, it had a section explaining international reaction and expected impact on economy (as well as a photograph of the expecting mother and a photograph of the hospital where the birth was to take place). That's the stuff that helped the article survive nomination deletions. That's what made it encyclopedic, not the fact that child was to be a prince and in line to a throne, and that's what this article lacks. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously "doubt there will ever be enough to warrant an article" about this person? This is going to be one of the most watched and reported-on people in Britain for the rest of their life. The closest equivalent person for comparison is Prince Harry (the other "second brother" of the British royal family and current "fourth place" in line) and he is a B-class article with 68,830 bytes. The mere fact of this child's existence has garnered gushing news coverage from many countries (and 'well wishes' from world leaders) and that's before any newspapers have been printed. Within Britain there will be a nauseatingly large amount of press coverage over the next months about the pregnancy and birth, followed by a lifetime of being a subject of paparazzi and official press-releases. Will this be quality journalism - not necessarily, but will this child receive "enough to warrant an article", in your words - most certainly.

This child will receive an article eventually as no one would seriously deny its "notability" once born, the question is when is too early to start the article? Witty lama 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards "keep" (probably "snow keep"), despite being an English republican. However, I am wondering what we'd do in the unfortunate event of a miscarriage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd delete it, of course, and that's another reason why this is not an article fit for encyclopedia. Something that's encyclopedic material now should be encyclopedic material tomorrow as well. Otherwise it's just news. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to disagree that we'd delete the article. Rather, it would probably morph from being an article less like a biography and more like an "event". If this pregnancy somehow didn't reach full term, it would covered by countless news sources and then would become a morbid fact recalled by every Royal-watching documentary and book for decades. Wittylama 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can imagine few things more distasteful, and perhaps more distressing for the parents. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is really a very morbid topic - but I think that our discussions of what, in such circumstances would be blanket media coverage, would be very restrained. I fear for what the UK tabloids would print... Witty lama 20:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I would imagine that a single sentence, or even just a few words, in the articles for William and Kate, would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I realize we have a lot about monarchies, but this is going a bit far. PatGallacher (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. Later we can have an article about an unborn baby when there is more information. In Prince George's article there was even an image of the Duchess when she was expecting. Edit: Although I want this article deleted, there is a chance that this article will be kept. In that case Rename to Second confirmed pregnancy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect more will be written when the Duchess visits Malta but I really think this article should be deleted. Even people who are interested in royals should be reasonable enough to delete articles that don't make sense.This article is a terrible quality article and I don't think an announcement is enough for the keep. The article is one big IF. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a content outside the living people biography context: there will be some works to cover and analyze the links between the announcement, the birth and the Scottish independence referendum. The article already covers, with reference to recent news articles, this aspect of the subject. It will then go beyond WP:NOT#NEWS to offer context and analysis. --Dereckson (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So it deserves inclusion (as a news item) at Scottish independence referendum, 2014? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's not the best argument, but if there isn't an official page for this child, I suspect there will end up being multiple competing and incomplete pages as has happened for other royal babies, including Prince George. Unless there is a specific way to make all prospective pages redirect to Catherine's page (as the mother), it seems to me like this page should stay. Metheglyn (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm for and against deleting this ... But at the end of the day we should just let the article grow ... Anyway meets GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not meet GNG any more than the pregnancy of the Princess of Monaco does. Her child will be first in line, not fourth, for what's that worth. (I have a feeling I'll regret saying this...) As I said, I was in favour of retaining the article about the "first foetus" because it was created a month before the birth and contained enough information to look acceptable, if somewhat bizarre. This one is seven months early and does not look like an encyclopedic article. This article is a mere pregnancy announcement. It will only serve to discredit Wikipedia for at least half a year. Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentInteresting to see that people who supported the first oppose this one- and for a good reason.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just too soon. Plenty of chance to recreate when this foetus has a much more likely chance of life. Wiki would look pretty silly if she lost this baby. Recreate a month or so before birth due.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination statement that this topic is not notable is clearly in error. According to the general notability guideline, a topic is notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The announcement has received an enormous level of coverage in such sources, including from the BBC, the ABC, CNN, The Washington Post and others. Quite clearly, there is enough coverage here to satisfy the general notability guideline, and then some. If you feel that the coverage is skewed because it's "just an announcement", even though this argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy, you can see the reams of coverage being generated on other aspects of the story, including this article on Kate's morning sickness from the New Zealand Herald, this article on conspiracy theories relating to the announcement and the Scottish referendum, or this article on Alex Salmond's choice of words in his response on Twitter. Given that this is getting wall to wall TV coverage as well out here in the colonies, I think it fair to say that there'll be plenty more coverage of this before this AFD is due to be closed. To address some other arguments made in favour of deletion, "Wiki" will not look "silly" if Kate loses the baby, a royal miscarriage will be a notable event even more dramatic than a birth announcement, and the article can simply be renamed should such a series of events occur. I fully expect that the article will change, grow, and be renamed as more information comes to hand, but those are not reasons to delete the article now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I can see, "coverage" is now over for the time being. What else were you expecting, exactly? Cancelling a viist to Malta (or not) can be easily dealt with in Kate's article. I'm really not sure why this is not just a sub-section in her article until the birth. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because, even though the article as it currently stands has limited content, with each passing week there will be some new factoid released or point of public discussion. If it were all kept in a "second pregnancy" section of the mother's article it would grow to a disproportionate size and need to be broken off to a sub-article - this article. Witty lama 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factoids? "Duchess appears with bump.."; "Katherine appears with slightly bigger bump.."; "Duchess buys maternity dress.."? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I gather you think that the media ga-ga over this is quite silly, and I'd agree with you. Nevertheless, the fact that newspaper and television journalistsare showering us with reliable sources means that this meets the WP:GNG quite handily. More coverage over the coming days is inevitable but not required, as the topic is notable right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying Witty's predictions are a little optimistic and irrelevant. At the moment I see this as a news-story worthy of a few lines in the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Lankiveil has argued - this article already meets GNG as a minimum standard, and even if my predictions about are optimistic the child will most certainly get their own biography page sooner or later. The question is really only "how soon is too soon?". Witty lama 11:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some media outlets have reported that the pregnancy may affect the Scottish independence referendum figures. This suggests that the foetus is already notable. -- Chuq (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown's announcement of "super-devolution" may affect the referendum figures. Does that mean it deserves its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If super-devolution becomes a "thing" then that should become an article, with Gordon Brown's announcement cited within it. Just as the reporting of a (claimed) connection between the baby-announcement and the independence referendum has been footnoted (four times) in this article. Witty lama 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if. Yes, this particular "factoid" has four supporting references, but it really needs only one. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put four in because I felt that the suggestion of the pregnancy having an impact on the referendum was a bold/controversial claim and therefore needed multiple citations. But feel free to remove one or two if you think they're superfluous to the point being argued. Witty lama 11:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know anything about "super-devolution" - it hasn't received significant media coverage here in Australia, whereas the royal pregnancy has - which I think proves my point. To clarify, the connection to the referendum isn't what makes it notable - the child will be fourth in line to the British throne and so will clearly be notable in any case - but to those who say "too soon", the connection of the referendum is an example of how it is already having an effect on other events. -- Chuq (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I think the renaming suggested by Gerard von Hebel above to "Second Pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge" has merit, as it is the pregnancy that seems to be notable at this moment and not just the child itself. As for not knowing how many times she has been pregnant, we only have reliable sources for Prince George and this one, which is all that really matters. We could also merge this with her page since she is the one that is pregnant. If either of those is not done, then I think this should be kept per the reasons given above. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think pregnancy announcement or Second confirmed pregnancy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be a better title.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not pregnant? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just let it snowball. Otherwise, another article will be created in the near future. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it this way. You don't need it to be so serious! Shame on Wiki for saying the child may never be born! -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.224 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support delete, although it will probably be kept. Question: will we keep Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge when that gets created at the mere mention of another pregnancy? Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not kidding. If this article is kept, I will create this page. This article is is barely about a child aside from stating the child's position in the line of succession and any article about a direct heir to the throne can do that. Not to mention that the heir to the throne of Monaco will affect the position of The Hereditary Princess of Monaco [22]. And as discussed above, in some countries a person who is not yet born is in the line of succession so why keep the article of one direct heir but not another? The article creator who created this article used the policy IAR (which makes no sense, but neither does Wikipedia).--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any judgement about the viability of an article on the unborn Child of the Prince and Princess of Monaco - but since you expressed your opinion that the article under discussion here should be deleted, then you might fall foul of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Witty lama 07:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe a new Monaco Royal Baby can save the Union! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Other stuff exists doesn't apply if the article to be created has good sources proving that it's notable. And as I said before I wanted this article deleted because it's too early, not because it's not notable. I would have never thought of creating an article of an unborn person if there hadn't been precedent. With precedent people feel encouraged to create similar articles though not always notable. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently unsure how to title the article though, as there's a report that says she's expecting twins.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, there isn't! It's all padding. Just ask the good doctor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ,,, no, wait, it's true[reply]

I would support the creation of Child of the Prince and Princess of Monaco - until the child has a name, starting the article under this name would make sense to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also Support the Monacan fetus The last one set the precedent for unborn children with significant coverage. Especially ones in line to things. It's not "crazy" anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Until born, article should probably be renamed Second pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge, but the event (and subsequent birth and biography) is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing here to have a separate article about. A woman is pregnant, and she is a notable woman, so her article mentions her pregnancy. When the baby is born... well, in my opinion, he/she won't actually be notable even then - notability is not inherited, right? - but I know my opinion will not prevail at that point. Until that time, at least, let's not jump the gun. Neutron (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the argument that the baby might not deserve an article yet (that's what this AfD is about after all) but I think you'd be a minority of 1 to seriously suggest that the child wouldn't be notable even once it's born... In the 21st Century the media and public really shouldn't care about one woman's pregnancy, I agree, but the unfortunate fact is that they do. Witty lama 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is not notable. The child's mother is doing the living for it. Notability is not inherited doesn't apply if the subject is about a member of a royal house. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited says that holding an official position such as first lady or being a member of the royal house is being notable. As soon as it's born it will be notable as a member of a royal house. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having an article on an embryo is premature. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just have to compliment you on that pun :-) Witty lama 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article does not contravene any policies. It:

- Contains no unverifiable speculation.

- Is not about an anticipated future event, it is about an unborn child.

- Is about a subject which demonstrably already enjoys wide interest.

- Only contains predictions or speculation of future events which is verifiable from reliable expert sources, is notable and is almost certain to take place. Bo.Clive (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite simply, the third in line is notable enough for his own article. Whether or not this child on birth will be notable enough as the fourth in line, notablity is too little at this stage for an article. Meantime, a redirect to one of the two parents should suffice: Pregnancy and motherhood[23] or Fatherhood[24]. Qexigator (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been pointed out that the pregnancy has attracted media attention and perhaps that would justify an article, although it is probably best kept in the article about the Duchess. In the meantime we have almost no information about the fetus. TFD (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing user Those that say keep point out that there is media attention about the child. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited says that children of celebrities are also not notable "although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child." When the child is born, it will be notable as a member of a royal house. There are some that have said that renaming is better than deleting as the article would not imply that the child is born. This is the problem with keeping articles like this. They have no official name or title. And if the article is renamed, there isn't a need to say second child as people already knows who the first child is. The article is about the current unborn child doesn't need to say first or second. The page or redirect Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambrige is available since it was deleted upon the announcement of this pregnancy.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on note to closing user. However, this unborn child is clearly already notable in their own right. The reliable sources concentrate on the unborn child, and the child's future, and not on the parents. This is not just the child of a celebrity, they will be 4th in line to the British throne and to the thrones of numerous other nations. Bo.Clive (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the parents are the only reason for this future child being "4th in line to the British throne". News sources are hardly likely to "concentrate on the parents" as they are already quite well-known? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for notability are irrelevant, that the unborn child is notable in their own right is all that is required for them to qualify for an article under WP:GNG. Bo.Clive (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the "reasons for notability" are totally relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? GNG only requires notabilty - which is what we have. Bo.Clive (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Foetus of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, since it's crystal-balling to call it a "child" yet. Or if you want something shorter, Foetus of Cambridge. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable topic that already has, and will continue to have, widespread coverage in reliable sources. The article can easily be moved to the name of the child (or children) when their names are known; or if the worst happens, then I'm sure that there will be far too many reliable sources available to expand the article significantly. :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 18 September 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.

Post close comment: As we can see, some of the "keep" comments were based on renaming suggestions. How are these to be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 clousure)--114.81.255.40 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Hotel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barclay Hotel

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

This page is not properly supported by scholarly sources. It provides questionable information on a historic property and is being ranked high by Google without merit. This property is no longer a hotel, but it is being represented as such in a Google search. It is also improperly populating The Rittenhouse Hotel knowledge graph on Google, misdirecting consumers and customers. Hebs2011 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AFD was not correctly formatted (used subst template). I corrected it. Cheers! Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited source [25], and others found through the usual searches vouch for the historical notability of the building. See, e.g., [26][27][28][29][30] None of the other issues mentioned in the nomination are sufficient reasons to delete an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wikipedia article is clear that the hotel is no longer operating, so if Google search results give wrong information that is their problem not Wikipedia's. There are many former hotels, churches, club buildings, etc. which are Wikipedia-notable and have articles and Google needs to handle that. I believe they are properly categorized as hotels or whatever they were, and Google could be keying off of that, but it is possible the categorizations should be modified to show as former hotels or whatever, but still those would be within larger hotels category. Notability of the building is clearly asserted in the article and it appears there will be many mentions in historical sources, whether or not those are online. Can tag for more sourcing but there is not any adequate reason here to delete the article. --do ncr am 15:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the "Rittenhouse Hotel knowledge graph" mentioned in the nom? An error there in Google would not mean this article should be deleted, but I am curious what you are referring to. Maybe there is some systematic google error that should be reported to Google. --do ncr am 15:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to 1900 Rittenhouse Square Apartments~~ Change to Keep per below - ~~The destination article is what this topic is now and that should include history of the~~ Barclay Hotel which in itself has a great deal of significant coverage. It was called "the city's most fashionable hotel" [31] and has had a great deal of significant coverage to it.[32][33][34]--Oakshade (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) COMMENT - Per Arxiloxos comments below, I can't firm the suggested destination article covers the same building. I thought I read on a couple of websites it is, but now I can't find those websites. But KEEP nonetheless as this is certainly a historic notable hotel and later condo building. --Oakshade (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm if those are the same building? According to the sources I find, The Barclay is at 237 S. 18th Street [35], across the square from the 1900 Rittenhouse Square building. Google Maps: [36] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable building, both architecturally and historically. Take a look at it! Nomination looks a lot like sour grapes from another business. The "misdirection" of "consumers and customers" of the Rittenhouse Hotel is of no concern to us. The Wikipedia description of the Barclay does indeed for some reason (since they have different names and different addresses) appear to have been included on Google above reviews of the Rittenhouse, but that's Google's problem, not ours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 10 September 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. Promotional paid editing means we apply guidelines very strictly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visiondirect.co.uk[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP as there is no or little coverage in independent, reliable sources. Iselilja (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious WP:PROMO LaMona (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Promo bollox that belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smeldridge's huge improvements - It's most definitely ALOT better than before! (Thanks Smeldridge). –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and clearly promotional and lacks Reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a non-notable firm/website. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Also confirming that opinion persists on the revised version of the article: the firm exists, was fined in a court case and relocated offshore: not evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 8 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, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been pointed out to me that since the last !vote was cast this article has been heavily re-written; I'm therefore relisting the discussion to allow consensus on the improved version of the page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would first like to state that I am substantial contributor to this article and working on behalf of Visiondirect.co.uk. I re-wrote the article last week on the 3rd of September. The previous article failed WP:PROMO, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. It has been re-written as an encyclopedic article. •User:Smeldridge (talk contribs) 15:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Comment Added more sources to demonstrate notability. •User:Smeldridge (talk contribs) 15:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator: The text of the article has been much improved since I nominated it for deletion. I still see a lack of reliable sources, though. By my count, the company is mentioned in independent, reliable sources three times: Twice in 1998 when they were fined for their way of selling contact lenses (they appear to have been the first or among the first to sell online in UK) but sources which only focuses on illegal activity does not give notability per WP:ILLCON, and then once in passing in 2008 along with two other similar sites. The rest of the sources are not what we normally consider independent, reliable sources but homesites or press-releases disguised as journalism (prwire etc.). There may of course be off-line sources we are not aware of, but all in all my impression is that this isn't a company that is covered in reliable media to such an extent that we can write a comprehensive article based on reliable sources without supplementing a lot with non-independent homepages, press-releases etc. So I think it still fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND. Iselilja (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Romanowski[edit]

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

Only reference is his website. This is a promotional piece for a non-notable martial artist. This was tagged by another editor for speedy delete but declined as some attempt to describe notability was made.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete He actually does have some coverage in Polish-language sources (two features in Cooltura magazine and one feature in Goniec Polski). The article can be sourced to the hard-copy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Switching to delete per below. Apparently the sources provided are not significant. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to see how he meets WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you're relying on foreign language publications you need to provide a translation. Certainly the claims of being European champion and world runner-up should have sources in English.Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need not be in English, there is no policy or guideline that says that. English is preferred, obviously, but Polish is a very real language, spoken by millions of people, and is just as legitimate and trustworthy as English. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English that is true - but it should (with English sources also) be sure to refer to what is claimed. But that's stating the obvious.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindzmarauli, WP:NONENG says "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided." No one is disputing that Polish is a real language, but we need to be able to verify that sources provide significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have two main issues - his name does not come-up in any searches for karate champions either here (wikipedia) or elsewhere so I would at the very least want to know which tournament/organization and when. The second issue is the red flag that goes up whenever you have claims of special forces/elite combat. Besides extraordinary claims needing extraordinary sources what we have is typical self-promotional material.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the fact that his name doesn't pop up in Google searches for Karate champions is also a problem, but it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. I will try to find someone who understands Polish better than I do. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter is right, we do need to see which titles and organizations the championships came from. Also, almost all the claims I've seen for training special forces have turned out to be bogus (or at least highly inflated).Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are promotional non-independent pieces. I failed to independently verify claims about his glory among "elite forces". Also unclear what kind of champion he was: may be in some rare style with only 3 and half practicioners in whole Poland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither Goniec Polski nor Cooltura are major publications, IMHO - they are niche (regional - Poles in the UK) ones. As such, I don't think they suffice to help this pass WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Right now he fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Will reconsider if new and better sources are found.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 11 September 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. Copyvio, http://www.msi-global.com.sg/our-people.html Jac16888 ^Talk 09:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Hock Yong[edit]

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

Copy paste from http://www.msi-global.com.sg/our-people.html ~Mohammad Hossain~ 08:57, 8 September 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. The adduced sources evidently are not RS so the policy based arguments are to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Aoyagi[edit]

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

No sources outside of LDS Church News p b p 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To begin with, the claim of the sources is incorrect. There are other sources listed than the Church News. Secondly, as was explained earlier, due to their nature, members of the second quorum of the 70 meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails GNG as written. All the sources are either written by Aoyagi himself or are connected with the body from which he draws his notability. There is no specific guideline that says general authorities are notable, so we defer to GNG, which this person fails. p b p 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the discussion on Randy D. Funk [37] where there were very convincing arguments put forward on why such articles should be kept. I have to say that this is part of a long-standing pattern of vexatious attacks on LDS related articles by pbp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Convincing". LOL. Vojen's "argument" ignores GNG, which is the only relevant policy around here. As for the "vexatious attacks" argument, there are a lot of LDS-related articles out there that are not compliant with policy. It's not an attack to demand that they be in compliance. p b p 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent secondary sources, fails GNG and any relevant SNG. Article is mainly consisting of original research. Cavarrone 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Vojen's excellent argument here, his position of notability as a general authority of the LDS Church trumps GNG guidelines. That nomination failed. I feel confident this one will too, just as the Wilford W. Andersen article failed 2 nominations, the first because of a mass nomination and the second because of Vojen's argument. Presiding Bishopric members don't serve until death either. Are articles about them to be nominated for deletion as well? Where do we draw the line? As I mentioned on the Deletion Review Discussion for the Vinson article, where do we draw the line? There are other articles here on Wikipedia that use either entirely LDS-related sources or no sources at all, and I don't see them being nominated for deletion. I don't see why those articles aren't being contested, but these ones (being as heavy in LDS sources as they are) are being challenged. Next you'll be telling me that since past LDS church leaders are dead, their Wikipedia articles should be deleted, since they have no more relevance now that they are not alive. Where will it end? I still believe the better way (the higher road, if you will) would be to discuss article issues on the talk page before they are nominated for deletion. That's the whole purpose of talk pages--to deal with article issues. So I wonder why that isn't being done. I still think we do articles a great disservice by nominating them for deletion before we discuss issues relating to articles that aren't up to Wikipedia policy. I believe all articles created could meet Wikipedia policy if editors worked together trying to improve articles such as this instead of having to spend time discussing whether to delete or keep such articles before the real issues with them even have a chance to be addressed. At least, that's the way I see it. As with all deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I've said what I came to say. I now leave it to the consensus to decide. At the outset, I would encourage those discussing this issue to remember to assume good faith on the part of each person posting and to be civil in the dialogue of the discussion. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The same argument applies here as for all of the Second Quorum of the Seventies. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_30, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Devn Cornish, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination).)

Here is my position. GNG is not the appropriate standard for these people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. I would refer anyone to the people notability criteria if they really think GNG is the only relevant policy around here. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.

A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules, but they are seperate standards. That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.

As sources are still important to show notability, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Aoyagi's status based on his office (these are not meant to show the kind of converage that would meet GNG, but rather to show how assumption of the office changes Aoyagi's notability). Not surprisingly the most substantive coverage of his work and ministry (wc?) is in the Japanese sources, but the English sources demonstrate essentially the same thing to a lesser degree. If the community insists on GNG, then I say delete the article. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.

English:

http://searchingthescriptures.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/helping-hands/ (Independent analysis of Aoyagi's teachings)

http://www.mission.net/japan/sendai/page.php?pg_id=5269 (independent account of need to secure Aoyagi and others after earthquake because of leadership role)

http://www.morumon.org/seniormissionarieswfhistory-19.htm (independent memoir mentioning young Aoyagi prior to his appointment)

http://elderjosephgandy.blogspot.com/ (missionary blog reference)

http://mormonendowment.com/734/mormon-temple-groundbreaking-in-sapporo-japan (blog reference)

Japanese:

www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100321.pdf (independent newsletter - one step above a blog, but not an established publication by any means - reporting on activities of church in Japan with extensive coverage of Aoyagi's activities)

www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100221.pdf (additional reference to Aoyagi from same newsletter source)

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yoriissouno/e/1230e74f8e8bdd94260f79b922c6e5eb (independent blog mentioning instruction and guidance given by Aoyagi on a church visit)

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yamano0305/52053790.html (independent blog expressing excitement at Aoyagi's visit to the church in Ube in Yamaguchi-ken)

http://www.morumon.org/gospelsharingtabuchi.htm (independent blog post expressing awe and comfort at visit from Aoyagi during a time of illness)

http://www.morumon.org/newsroomapostleapr09.htm (unofficial translation of LDS news release with additional commentary on Aoyagi because of the local interest in Japan)

http://morumon.org/japanesemembersaoyagiarticleFeb2014.htm (independent analysis of an article that was published by Aoyagi to members of the LDS church in Japan - see p. 2-4 of http://ldschurch.jp/bc/content/Japan/local-page/2014/2014-02LocalForWeb.pdf for original article)

Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. -Vojen (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one problem, Vojen: Your "sources" are unreliable. They're just blogs that happen to mention Aoyagi's name. Also, your argument is predicated on ignoring GNG, which in my mind is a major no-no p b p 13:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I readily admitted they are not "reliable" enough for GNG. I included them to demonstrate that these guys are equivalent in standing to a Catholic bishop. They are reliable enough for that purpose as they are third party sources showing lots of unrelated people holding Aoyagi out to be a high-ranking member of the clergy. The Endo Times articles (the first two Japanese newsletter sources) in particular are definitely stronger than blogs. This is a newsletter for the LDS Japanese disapora that has readers in Alaska, Texas, and Seattle (see the 21 March 2010 issue), in addition to readers in Japan, but I don't think it is quite to the GNG level because it's a newsletter, not a newspaper. Anyhow, my primary concern is consistency. I don't think any of the Second Quorum guys will meet GNG because of their work prior to the church office (though I could be wrong in the individual case), so either they are analogous to a Catholic bishop, which means we keep them all, or they are not which means we delete them all. I'm not changing my vote, but I'd be okay with either outcome, and would actually prefer deleting them all to the inconsistency we have now.

Of course my interpretation of the Catholic bishop rule may be wrong (a reasonable conclusion as my argument is just an implied extension of the people notability guidelines and not explicitly stated...but then that is the way rules work, otherwise we would never have gotten Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education). For comparason purposes, it looks like a lot of the Catholic bishop articles are pretty weak as well. Just pulling two at random, see Francis B. Schulte and Bernard William Schmitt, the only source these articles cite is http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/. This site looks to be about the equivalent of http://www.gapages.com/, which we could cite for all of the LDS guys (and many of them actually do cite there as an External Link, see Nathan Eldon Tanner), but I wouldn't consider either site to meet the GNG source requirements. Others might disagree. I've got nothing against the Catholic bishop articles and would like to keep them, but to be consistent maybe we need to get rid of the Catholic bishop rule entirely. Vojen (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Church publications, blogs, and other trifles do not establish notability for individuals in this project. The level of zeal and meticulous source-squeezing for any and all name-drops of the subject suggests a Scientology-level of inappropriate advocacy editing. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vojen and Jgstokes and have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are no more reliable than the (unreliable) sources that were already in the article. p b p 04:50, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the absence of third-party sources or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this article satisfies the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Until someone can explain why this article is attacked, while the less sourced article on Francis B. Schulte remains unassailed, this comes off as a troublesome nomination with no ground to stand on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, if anybody's attacking anyone, it's you. You've just presented a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: just because there's a related poorly-sourced article in no way justifies keeping this one, nor am I under any other obligation to nominate Schulte because I nominated this article. Not only is your comment a complete non-sequitur, it's disruptive. You've been told by numerous editors that it is acceptable for me to nominate these, and that you've exaggerated by claiming that my AfDs are attacks. But, if you want to continue exaggerating, go ahead and take this to ANI if you want. There won't be an iota of action taken. p b p 04:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I remember seeing several of these run across AfD (i.e., where the only notability was within the church / the sources cited where church-based / no independent notability), and a cursory search turned up:

...so this basically is starting to turn into a common outcome from what I can tell. There are exceptions, obviously (e.g., having notability for other things as well), but this article doesn't look like one of them.

--slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:NOTABLE. Tina Gasturich (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTABLE, There is nothing here but personal opinion without any backup. Jodosma (talk) 20:27, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:00, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slam Bang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. 2006 AfD resulted in no consensus; has been tagged for notability since 2008. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wasteful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:45, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since 8 further years since the last AFD doesn't seem to have uncovered reliable sources or verifiability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Lee Webb[edit]

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

Article namesake doesn't appear to have had any charted songs, also appears to fail WP:NOTE as a stand alone individual. Amortias (T)(C) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Delete'. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:33, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. The person does not meet the notability required to be in an encyclopedia the panda ₯’ 09:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johncongo (rapper)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Long story short, this page was originally at Johncongo, but the page has been repeatedly speedied under WP:A7 to the point where User:Writ Keeper protected the page after the 7th attempt to create an entry. I found this one as it was brought to WP:REFUND in an attempt to get the page unprotected and moved. The problem here is that there just isn't any notability. The article makes claims, but I can find no actual coverage for him. The page has sources, but they're either dead links or they don't mention him at all- something that would be necessary in order to show notability. A search for his name doesn't bring up anything either. I figure we can do an official AfD for this, that way we can just speedy it as WP:G4 in the future. If this is deleted, I'd recommend that this get salted as well to prevent re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was at AfD previously, but had been speedied. I'd like to request that this not be speedied, as I'd like a formal AfD consensus from here on out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:General notability guideline. I could find no coverage of him at all in secondary sources. As Tokyogirl79 said, none of the links on the page mention him, which is a bad sign for an article first created this March. All the Google results seem to be social media. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of worried me too, which was why I nominated it. I feel a little bad about this because I do feel like I'm kicking a puppy with all of this, but there's still a big lack of notability here. There's a draftspace copy though, so if/when he does get more coverage they can always re-submit that one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just need more source and clean up but not delete..From google it appears he is a rapper with some criteria that fit in an article.. MrOneTime (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)— MrOneTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep : The article should not be deleted. He seems recognize through one of its singles.. Werightere (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrOneTime and Werightere are confirmed socks of Latertinsna. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources and is not even known in Nigeria. I believe MrOneTime and Werightere are either sock-puppets or meat-puppets. Both accounts were open relatively the same time. Both accounts have not contributed to any other article apart from this one. I find that very suspect. Versace1608 (Talk) 14:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Werighthere, whose only two other edits were creating blank user and user talk pages, but MrOneTime and Latertinsna worked in coordination at Wiktionary, and their edits were pretty much interchangeable. If not the same person, they were definitely in communication offwiki. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 2 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: the account that created this also created an entry at Wiktionary, which was speedily deleted (the stage name of a rapper simply isn't dictionary material) to which they responded by re-creating the entry- repeatedly. MrOneTime also recreated the same entry once in the same period. In total, the entry was deleted 6 times by 4 different admins and re-created 5 times in 2 hours before I blocked both accounts to put a stop to it. A couple of weeks later, MrOneTime re-created it again (this time in lowercase). Adding in a bogus template and category used in the entries, that's 4 different pages and 9 deletions. Neither account has edited anything else at Wiktionary except for their user and user talk pages. Given that record, any pretense of good faith by either of those accounts just isn't credible. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. This kind of self-promotional spamming must not be tolerated. 86.130.41.222 (talk) 04:27, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus mini three[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be a WP:NOTABLE product. It has been tagged for six and a half years (unresolved) for notability. Last AfD (in 2011) was closed as no consensus, only one comment (which wasn't a keep or delete). Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Reviews in TechPowerUp, xbit, tweakers.net, techradar.pro, xsreviews, and maclife. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lesser Cartographies. James500 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mildly promotional, and fails WP:NPRODUCT. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:31, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Jiwa[edit]

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

Although there are indications of possible notability, I could not verify it. It has been tagged for notability for six and a half years, unresolved. It was created by an WP:SPA whose username is the Fjiwa, indicating possible self-promotion. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:30, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:03, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Lyons[edit]

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

Though this has the appearance of a well-crafted article, there is one problem; nothing in this supports WP:BIO notability. Bottom line, this person owned a few oil wells and ran for various political offices but was never elected to any of them. Charlton Lyons and Susybelle Lyons seem to have similar problems. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem of the sources listed in the article should be explained, as you say "nothing in this article supports WP:BIO notability." Otherwise the volume of the sources would get him past WP:BASIC whatever he has actually done. Disclosure: I have no idea of the reliability of the sources.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the verifiability threshold is crossed and it's right at the notability threshold as a figure in the American Independent Party who, like Ross Perot's Reform Party, reshaped American politics without actually winning a lot of elections. What does bother me is that a lot of the sourcing appears to be about other people which is fine for verifiability but does nothing for notability. I'll be surprised if half of these sources can be shown to be about Hall Lyons, even in passing. - Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, then merge This biography is an excellent bit of original research, but there are no references actually about Lyons except for his obituary. Perhaps some of the information could be merged into American Independent Party. For example, that article only lists California Gubernatorial candidates, so does not include Lyon. I would give the author (who has done this work single-handedly, it seems) a chance to WP:Userfy the article so that the research done is not lost. If a few more reliable references could be found the article could be trimmed down to only the sourced biographical information about Lyons. But I would mainly encourage the author, who seems knowledgeable about the topic, to work on the AIP article and expand articles on the related elections and districts (creating articles where needed) rather than focusing on a single person. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 1 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are plenty of sources but half of the best ones are to newspaper articles that aren't online so can't be checked to see if he's talked about in much detail. Tiller54 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 32 sources and 29 regular links. It is fully sourced. There would be no way to move this article to American Independent Party, but it is linked to the AIP. Mr. Lyons is largely a pre-Internet subject. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:38, 14 September 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) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Craig (judge)[edit]

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

I don't see anything in WP:BIO about state district judges being inherently notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe state judges are automatically notable and I don't see coverage sufficient to meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judges at his level are not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also: he fails my standards for judges, and the sourcing stinks. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stephen of Ecuador[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:26, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:19, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 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 Talk That Talk. Of note is that the redirect preserves the article's revision history, if anyone wants to merge content. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lipstick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews and those taken from the album's own liner notes. Minor chart placement and no live performances either. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, Talk That Talk. The song being listed as a GA has no qualms on its status as an independent article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect - Charted on three charts (it doesn't matter if it's a "minor" chart or low charting; charting is charting), it's a bonus track so reception will obviously not be as much as standard track song or single, it has been performed live (not that that is a valid reason for nominating to delete). And yes, it is a GA, and that does have an impact on this, and the reviewer clearly didn't have a problem with notability, and neither did anyone else in the last AFD, who all voted keep. — ₳aron 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Faulty logic buddy, you hit the nail on its coffin saying that reception will obviously not be as much as standard track or single, so it fails WP:NSONGS, point one. As noted, its best a CFORK and the GA reviewer not identifying a NSONGS failing article before he/she reviewed it does not mean that it should be notable. A GA review is not the means and end all to an article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it's not non-existent. — ₳aron 16:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Its existence does not render it notable. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Talk That Talk plausible search term, but doesn't warrant a separate article when it only gets brief mentions and/or only coverage from album reviews. PopDust, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source at all. Charts are irrelevant when there is no significant coverage from secondary sources outside of album reviews per WP:NSONGS, which explicitly states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though I !voted to "keep" last time, this should probably be redirected to Talk That Talk. Since the first nomination, WP:NSONGS has (rightfully, in my view) been clarified to note that songs must establish notability independent of its parent album to warrant a standalone article. In this case, such coverage in reliable independent sources is rather limited - if we accept this write-up as one piece of significant coverage there still must be a second to meet the "multiple, non-trivial" standard. Further, the remaining sections of the article - "Recording and production" and "Credits and personnel" - merely duplicate the album's liner notes (i.e., no independent coverage). The "Charts" references yield only listings; no coverage. The spirit of WP:NSONGS, as I see it, is that a song must, in addition to having "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", have coverage beyond "the context of reviews of the album on which it appears". I'm not convinced this song qualifies. Gongshow talk 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been wrongfully changed. What is wrong with album reviews now? — ₳aron 21:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and album reviews don't exactly give much highlights to tracks compared to non-album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that is where the main hub of info about the songs and their genres, samples, lyrical meanings are. Without album reviews there would be no information. — ₳aron 22:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Album reviews can definitely be used in articles, but cannot be solely relied upon to warrant an article, because then it wouldn't have much on its own. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. — ₳aron 22:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that's fine, but that does not make passe mentions album reviews as a notability factor for an independent article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "wrong" with album reviews per se, it's just that they generally do not provide significant/in-depth coverage on individual songs. Take the Popcrush review for example. Each of the album's 14 songs gets a sentence or two, but such brief name-checks are trivial mentions, whereas significant coverage addresses the topic/song "in detail". Compare the coverage for "We Found Love" at Popcrush with coverage at The Guardian [38] or NME [39]. The latter two are in-depth (and thereby establishes notability), while the former is trivial (and does not establish notability). Obviously, "We Found Love" was a big hit and should be expected to have much more written about it than a bonus track like "Red Lipstick". But that's kind of the point. Just because a song exists, even on a popular album, does not mean a standalone article is warranted. Gongshow talk 00:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, album reviews which talk about individual songs are fine. I understand that Red Lipstick doesn't have as much because it's a bonus track so critics usually leave that out, but We All Want Love has more than enough. It has three paragraphs of CR for Christ's sake, which is more than Cold Case Love. — ₳aron 13:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 30 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect. I'm not convinced that these minor chart appearances warrant a separate article, and the passing mentions in reviews certainly can't support an article. This song does not need its own article. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge and redirect to article for parent album (Talk That Talk). Minor chart appearances do not establish notability; in its current state, barely any reliable, third-party coverage of the song outside of album reviews is cited, and as such the article fails WP:NSONGS. These kinds of articles don't really establish notability of the song, a sentiment I've expressed in several other similar AFDs. Holiday56 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wynn[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this is a totally farcical nomination. The article in question is about the main villain in the Spawn Books, Tv series and movie (portrayed by Martin Sheen and given top billing, no less). Numerous third party sources exist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:20, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this articles should be kept now. JamboGhana (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.....and your reason?.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:26, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 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 Deleted: CSD A7. Alexf^(talk) 11:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SARARA RAJPUTS[edit]

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

Lacks notability, I wonder if such group exist, search "Sarara Rajput" anywhere, you will find only this page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The supposed book doesn't seem to pop up anywhere either, just a YouTube video with that title. mol uɐɯ 21:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 16:08, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:46, 29 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that the first two !votes don't provide a guideline- or policy-based rationale for article retention. Part of the nomination has been countered with the addition of sources to the article (e.g. The Washington Times) after it was nominated for deletion. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to 1) the first two "keep" !votes carrying little weight, and 2) the remaining three !votes (including the nomination) comprise overall inadequate input for a solid consensus to be determined here, although it is leaning delete. Per the "weak keep" !vote, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page, if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zera (comics)[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep or move to Angela. reggieRegginVegas (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)— RegginVegas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this articles should be kept now. JamboGhana (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)— JamboGhana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment not one person has provided a source to justify notability, people seem to say keep for of saying so with any good reasoning to back it up.Dwanyewest (talk) 21:57, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP this article now has reliable sources, but may be better off merged into another one, maybe Angels in Spawn?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only non-primary sources the article has are trivial mentions of an action figure of the character. The article is written almost entirely from an in-universe point-of-view and gives no indication whatsoever of notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:29, 9 September 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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 52. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Lutz[edit]

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

This article is about a political activist / politician who does not meet notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. As a politician, he has run twice for office, but has not won; none of the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN is met. As an activist, he received minor mentions in news coverage. I found [40], [41], [42], [43]. These all mention him, but fall well short of signficant coverage about him. Additionally, there are potential claims for notability in his professional career. The claim to have helped create Dragon's Lair, the video game is not backed up with any sources, nor could I find any in my own searches. The founding Cognisys also lacks any coverage that I could find that would establish that as notable. Whpq (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does have some significant coverage for COPS: [44]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also looked at the San Diego newspaper articles, and although they mention him, they are not strong on significance. The most significant is the one above listed as "COPS". I note that at least 3 of the user accounts that have done significant editing seem to be single purpose accounts - CC5191 (no user page), 99.107.233.210 and 68.7.238.55. Obviously, the IP address edits could be flukes. I'm leaning toward delete for the following reasons: not notable as a politician; a local activist, but no evidence of major social or political impact; possible promotional activity on the page. LaMona (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The East County Magazine is a community paper, and doesn't add much weight as a source for notability. Whpq (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) He got some mainstream publicity for a hunger-strike stunt during his campaign against Hunter,[45][46][47] but that's a single incident, and I can't find anything else to meet any of our criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 25 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect What was I thinking? As an unsuccessful and non-notable nominee for office, the usual procedure would be to redirect his article to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 52. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reasoning of MelanieN. It is usual for those who fail WP:POLITICIAN, who were unsuccessful in their candidacy, and are not notable per WP:GNG, to be redirected to the most notable election. Although the hunger strike received coverage, it doesn't pass WP:PERSISTENCE; furthermore, even if it did, the subject would fall under WP:BLP1E. Therefore, per normal procedure, redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 52 as suggested above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:56, 6 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MelanieN and RightCowLeftCoast. Tiller54 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 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. + requested by both primary contributors slakr^\ talk / 09:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zac n' adam[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable band. Two singles, that apparently may or may not have done well on the Beat100 chart, but not on any of the recognized music charts of the UK.. No indications of any significant coverage anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added articles about the band's recordings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations

Quote: Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape.

Quote: The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.

Quote:' determing notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.

They are an unsigned band who have not long been around, they are obviously not going to be in the top UK charts. By the looks of it, The information was all taken from their website.

So it is not as though the sources are not accurate. Also whether they only have two singles is irrelevant because in the future they will have more. They did say they are working on an album.

The person who created it was possibly a fan and they are on 6 pages of google — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinCross84 (talk • contribs) — ColinCross84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As noted, "...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what should be included, and for bands, those guidelines are found at WP:BAND. Also, as in all cases, WP:GNG applies. This band meets none of the criteria at either location. Their article is sources solely to their own Facebook page, or to pages they have created on soundcloud and similar promotional vehicles. As to the "accuracy" of the information, we have no way of knowing: when promoting oneself or one's own band, accuracy is not the aim, so we can't really trust the band's own promotional material to be accurate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all of the pages linked to this artist because I didn't read the terms and I apologise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs)
- Comment As ElliotM26 is the main author, but not the sole author of these pages (ColinCross84 (talk · contribs) has also had a hand, unless they are both the same user (a separate problem)), Elliot's request for deletion cannot be considered as equivalent to a {{db-author}}. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not the same person, we are friends and we were using the same ip address at the same time because I was not home. I asked him to write something to help keep the page (as I didn't understand why it had been deleted) but then I told him to delete it for me. I admit that we were both silly for not reading or checking terms. I asked him to log back in to help me get this removed but he told me he'd been blocked for vandalism.

Please delete the pages, we are both sorry for the convenience. It's also against wikipedias terms to be on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When does this process take place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD process is generally allowed to run for seven days, unless there is a preponderance of opinion that the article is not to be kept. In this case, there is no preponderance, as there have been no other opinions heard. However, to the reviewing administrator, I would recommend accepting the author's admission above that the article should not have been created in the first place as evidence of eligibility for WP:CSD#G7 deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:56, 29 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Dorosh[edit]

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

He does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTORS, from what I can see. May well just be a case of WP:TOOSOON Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the coverage needed for WP:GNG and falls short of WP:NACTORS. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This article sat dormant for FOUR YEARS. The second I made an attempt to improve it by adding references, a deletionist jumped on it because of an automated notification. Subject is obviously notable and meets the standards for retention. Put another way, what harm comes from keeping the article? If there was a problem, why wasn't it identified FOUR YEARS AGO? And now that someone shows the least bit of interest in contributing, it is time to pull the plug? This kind of garbage is what really turns people off from contributing.131.137.245.206 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per failure to meet WP:GNG, mainly WP:NACTOR. No independent sources exist to verify the notability of this person. Verifiable independent sources need to be published first (WP:TOOSOON). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easily fails WP:NACTOR WP:GNG WP:RS - At best this is WP:TOOSOON. It is irrelevant how long the article was in the article namespace. If anything the dormant article indicates that people were not interested in it, and that the subject was not receiving coverage. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR, failed to find independent reliable sources. BethNaught (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Wardell[edit]

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

no credible sources to show notability. PROD previously declined - moving to AFD Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I consider this highly promotional bio for a non-notable individual in search of a wider audience. Eminently speediable per WP:CSD#G11. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:00, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did the initial prod. At the time there were only two valid links among the refs and only one of the two was about the subject. Most of the refs still appear self-published or just a photo credit. Fails WP:CREATIVE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:41, 14 September 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 (soft). slakr^\ talk / 09:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cochrane[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster and writer, with not a shred of reliable source referencing provided to demonstrate that he gets past either WP:NMEDIA for the radio stuff or WP:AUTHOR for his book. The closest thing to a real notability claim here, in fact, is an unsourced and unconfirmed rumour that he was an influence on Tom Green. Delete unless the sourcing can be significantly improved. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and I can't find any. No evidence of notability for this person. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT slang terms[edit]

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

Wikipedia not a dictionary. There is encyclopedic article LGBT slang. word list belongs to wiktionary -No.Altenmann >t 15:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I would like to see a lot more citations, but I think this list has strong encyclopedic value and could be a very useful encyclopedia page. Cpuser20 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wiktionary does not allow lists, and this has value as a list. (Although individual terms could also be in Wiktionary.) I give this a weak rating because it is very temporal - slang comes and goes out of date quickly, and meanings change. Slang can also be limited to a small cohort, and therefore meanings can change from one "village" to another. It will only take a few months of neglect for this list to become less useful.LaMona (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails #3 of WP:NOT#DICT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The words on this list can be added to Wiktionary, and a category for English LGBT slang terms can be created there too, if anyone has the inclination. I notice that Wiktionary already has a category for English LGBT-related terms (not limited to slang): wikt:Category:en:LGBT. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Wikipedia is replete with lists of word meanings: Glossary of literary terms, List of English words of Yiddish origin, List of English words of Dutch origin, List of computer term etymologies, List of terms relating to algorithms and data structures, List of portmanteaus, Glossary of blogging, Glossary of philosophy, Glossary of classical physics... you get my point. If we are going to purge all glossaries and word lists from the Wikipedia, fine. Otherwise, I would to hear why the proposer feels this list should be singled out for deletion over all the many, many others. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Deleting this argument does not mean we have to delete others. You still need to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. While there is a good argument that List_of_terms_relating_to_algorithms_and_data_structures fails WP:DICTIONARY since it's derived from the entries in an actual dictionary, it has at least a source establishing the list as possibly notable. This particular list does not. Also, none of your examples are a list of slurs. This is a list of slang insults against people like "Poo pusher", "Tit gobbler", "Muff muncher", "Cock gobbler", "girlyboy". Surely it's reasonable to have a higher criteria for an article which entirely consists of a list of insults to people. What next? A list of slurs against conservatives or liberals? Or maybe a list of racial slurs? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary to list slang terms in use. Second Quantization (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an argument that the list needs to be cleaned up, a position I agree with. However, that is nowhere near an argument for deleting the article entirely. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good lists discuss notable items useful in understanding other encyclopedic topics in wikipedia. Other lists contain historically important items, with etymologies and references where they are discussed. Still others are in fact lists of wikipedia articles and are useful for navigation of a topic. All this gives them encyclopedic values. Now, what encyclopedic value do items of the discussed list have? If there are a few, important for understanding of LGBT culture, this may be covered in "LGBT slang" page, with proper references. -No.Altenmann >t 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a criteria for list notability: WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". What we are looking for, therefore, is a book by a reliable publisher listing homophobic slurs in a significant way.

"I think this list has strong encyclopedic value", isn't an argument for keep; it's merely saying the conclusion you would like.

"Wiktionary does not allow lists, and this has value as a list." This advances no argument. It does not matter what wikitionary doesn't allow, it doesn't mean we should allow it. WP:ADDSVALUE

Second Quantization (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is LGBT slang, not specifically slurs. And Glossaries of Sexuality, Coleman Juliein A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume IV: 1937-1984. "The earliest glossaries of gay slang were produced by psychiatrists trying to improve communication with their patients or to develop a diagnostic tool. Later glossaries offer keys to the secret world of homosexuality and defy convention in celebrating gay love. Demonized by Cold War associations with communism, users of gay slang are also depicted as agents of the anti-Christ by right-wing Christian fundamentalists." There is also Fantabulosa: A dictionary of polari and gay slang, P Baker - 2004 - Bloomsbury Publishing, Gay Talk: A Sometimes Outrageous: Dictionary of Gay Slang, B Rodgers - 1972 - Paragon Book, Mother clap's molly house: the gay subculture in England, 1700-1830, R Norton - 1992 - GMP London, New perspectives on language and sexual identity, L Morrish, E Morrish, H Sauntson - 2007 - Palgrave Macmillan, Gay and Lesbian Language, Don Kulick, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29, (2000), pp. 243-285, Published by: Annual Reviews. Gay Slang Lexicography: A Brief History and a Commentary on the First Two Gay Glossaries, Gary Simes, From: Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, Number 26, 2005, pp. 1-159 | 10.1353/dic.2005.0004. "His A Dictionary of Australian Underworld Slang (OUP, 1993) resulted from work being done for a larger project, a historical dictionary of the language of sex and sexuality in Modern English (since 1800). Another offshoot of that work, Australian and New Zealand Sexual Language: An Historical Dictionary is ready for publication. He has contributed to encyclopaedias and other reference works and published articles on lexicography, sexual language, and the history of sexuality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masioka (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per WP:DICTIONARY. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide" seems to cut pretty much straight through this page, which is merely a list, more properly described as some phrasebook or dictionary, of slang words. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT slang. I don't buy the WP:Dictionary argument because this isn't trying to define words (which, btw is what a dictionary does). This encyclopedia is rife with absolutely ridiculous lists of absolutely ridiculous topics, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does apply here. Those lists are not sufficient reason to keep this one (though I do wish someone would go through and nominate many of them for AfD). However, I think the best answer for this one is the same that was done for List of sexual slang which was to redirect it to the article Sexual slang. The list of terms themselves are transient and regional, so if someone wants to do an article on the etymology of particular terms (as spelled out in WP:DICTIONARY), they can probably find a better audience in the LGBT slang article than simply a laundry list of words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertium (talk • contribs)
Merge to LGBT slang and trim heavily (maybe to the point that I should just say redirect). Ansh666 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT slang as most are listed there anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, this list has 100-200 words with by far the majority not being at the article LGBT slang. In fact very few are there. Also slang terms are not as temporary as was suggested above. Some of these terms date back at least 70 years or more. Many of them have a history of their meanings changing with the region and time period. And some are brought back into use. Masioka (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Maybe I'd expect to read something like this on Urban dictionary or Uncyclopedia, but an actual encyclopedia? No. —Frosty ☃ 10:42, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think I can just throw WP:OR into here randomly. The list seems to be gratuitously exhaustive. Knight of the Pork Sword, Airy Dairy Fairy, She who drinks from the furry cup, Lick-a-lotta-puss? Really? What actual merit do any of those selected terms have? The same can be said about at least 80% of the list. There are certain terms like Dyke, Faggot, Bear, and Queen that are not gratuitous; those (along with a few others) have been discussed extensively, and they can fare well in LGBT slang or other appropriate articles. The rest of the terms look like they were caught in a trawler's net that swept across every slang dictionary. Including Randy Bumgardener and Shit stabber doesn't improve the project. mol uɐɯ 03:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are 36 articles on individual slang terms in Category:LGBT slang and its subcategory, so even if this list were limited to only notable terms there would be enough to merit a standalone list as a complement to the category per WP:CLN, and NOTDICT does not in any way restrict our internal indexing of articles just because those articles happen to be about words. But there's also no requirement for all list entries to be notable, particularly here where listing terms that are at least significant would be informationally integral to LGBT slang per WP:LISTPURP. So we have indisputably valid entries (i.e., the notable ones) and a notable parent topic grouping them (contra the completely unfounded LISTN deletion !votes above; see sources in parent article to show that LISTN is actually satisfied here). Which only leaves us with the problem of what inclusion threshold to maintain, which, given the previous, is a matter for ordinary discussion and editing to resolve, not a basis at all for deletion of the list as a whole. Simply requiring secondary sourcing to verify the usage of the term and its meaning might maintain adequate standards, though editors might decide to restrict inclusion to those terms verified in particular sources recognized as more authoritative. At any rate, that's not our problem to solve here in this AFD. So to recap, keep per WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and WP:LISTN, and deletion !voters should be reminded that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 17 September 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. Ekabhishek^talk 03:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Rajesultanpur[edit]

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

No clear indications that a school of this name exists in Rajesultanpur. Searches show the existence of schools of this name in other places, and at least one social media entry with no information (on a site named "wowsome"), but nothing reliable on which to verify even the existence of this school, let alone its size or academic issues. Searches in both English and Hindu fail. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:NSCHOOL. All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no official evidence of its existence. Sorry! CutestPenguin ^discuss 13:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cutest Penguin: You have misinterpreted WP:NSCHOOL. It does not say that schools automatically satisfy notability requirements, it says that they must satisfy either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This school clearly doesn't, since we can't even reliably verify its existence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 2 EL provided link to gereric pages, with no indication of existance or significance. I have also tried searching for sources, but nothing apparent. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It maybe possible that a local school in a rural area may not have a official website, but there are significant un-official multiple coverage and I believe that it cannot be phony. One such is www.asklaila.com/listing/Sultanpur/Civil+Lines/Mahatma+Gandhi+Smarak+Inter+College/ouFh4ke8/ and sultanpurcity.com/education.htm. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cutest Penguin: Sultanpur and Rajesultanpur are different places. The links you have provided are for a school in Sultanpur. And neither of them constitutes anything near "significant coverage". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rajesultanpur per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect is only valid if the school actually exists, and we still have no verification that it does. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3 (Hoax) - I should've read the nominators reason as he's right - There's nothing to say this school even exists - Although I did find "Nagar Nigam Gandhi Smarak Inter College" but then again I'm seeing alot of names infront of "Gandhi Smarak Inter College", The sources in the article are useless since one's irrelevant & the other's dead ... Unless an Indian editor can verify its existence I say WP:G3 applies. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: the same author added the list of schools to the education section of the Rajesultanpur article. He is obviously quite knowledgeable about this small city/town and his edits do not appear to be other than good faith. Therefore we should be extremely hesitant in declaring this article as a hoax and to do so is to insult and possibly lose an editor. Why create an article about a high school of 4,000+ students if it does not exist? - And then call it a government school? One thing is for sure, it's too big to a kindergarten or a primary school. Whereas we have no policy that assumes that all high school are notable by default, we do assume that in the case of an unreferenced school, unless there are grounds to assume it is publicity for a for-profit establishment, there is a strong argument to keep it. Also, not having sources is not a de facto criterion for deletion of an article. I'm inlcined to say we should err on the side of probability here for an area where Internet sources and websites may not be the strongest in the world, and keep this article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Kudpung: Unfortunately, you can not any longer see the photo that accompanied this article, because it has been deleted as a copyright violation, but it consisted of a stock photo of a generic Indian school yard, with the name of this particular school photoshopped in. When I see things like that, my willingness to assume good faith dissipates. I cannot begin to think of the reasons a person might have to perpetrate a hoax like this (perhaps there is funding to be obtained from the Indian government if you can convince them you're running a school in a remote village), but I also can't see any point in retaining an article about a school when none of the information (even the school's existence) is verifiable. WP:V is one of the primary pillars of Wikipedia; if an article can't have any of its information verified, what's the point of retaining it? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61. Can't imagine why anyone would go to so much trouble to fake a WP article about a school, but fake is fake. Thanks, Dan, for the heads up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exists! (Search for Gandhi Smarakm I.C., Rajesultanpur; there seems to be an additional 'm' in the actual name) Uttar Pradesh State Government Scholarship List, UP Government Scholarship Official Document, Page 91. Wifione ^Message 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wifione: You have done a appreciable job. Thanks! Even I am also going to change my vote to keep. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that we have verified that the school exists, the best I can recommend is a redirect to Rajesultanpur, since we have no verifiable information about the school outside of its existence. And recall, schools are only immune from speedy deletion; they still must meet the criteria of WP:ORG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created on 24th August. You nominated it for deletion on 25th August. Till now, the claim was that it is a hoax and all other !voters accepted that. Now that it's proved it's not a hoax (Google Maps is sometimes the best app to find out if a place is not a hoax), I would suggest let the article remain for a few days and let's allow the author(s) to add material. If in reasonable time this doesn't happen, we can have an early re-nomination again for deletion. But if you end up re-directing it, I don't think there is any hope for a government college article, which is not a hoax, to be built up using verifiable sources. This is just a suggestion. For example, if you were to use the Hindi translation of the college's name (use Google Translate), you immediately come up against a multitude of Hindi news sources containing the college's name:Amar Ujala, Hindustan, Jagaran, Janadesh et al. So clearly, to say that we have no verifiable information about the school outside the existence is completely wrong. My suggestion stands: allow the authors some time to add content using verifiable sources. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified college per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Celestial Hunt[edit]

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

This is an ebook that is sourced almost entirely to blogs. About 50 hits on Google, which indicates that it probably isn't notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stop this page being deleted. Please help us to fix it. Vishal Joshi 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Unfortunately this book just hasn't received any coverage that we could use as reliable sources (WP:RS) I see where the book has received blog reviews, but none of those count towards notability because they're considered to be an unreliable self-published source. We also cannot use Goodreads as a source because it's also considered to be a self-published source. Other than that, the sources are all primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) or otherwise unusable sources like merchant sites. For what it's worth, the book does look interesting, but we can't keep an article for a book without reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written article. If it's published by reliable sources, why not? RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This is an author's first book, and it has not won awards or become noted other than the usual sources that list or review thousands of books. I suspect that this article is premature, and that the author may himself become notable in the future. Should that come to pass, then an article on the author, listing all of his books, would be appropriate. Meanwhile, I suggest that this be moved to the user space of User:Vis_says to await further developments of this author. Also, I note that User:Vis_says has created other pages for individual books. Perhaps these also should become author pages? LaMona (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) All the reviews are genunine review. None of them are promotional or self published reviews. But yes they are not primary sources but can't we consider them as notable resource? 2) User:Vis_says has created other pages for authors not for book. This is my first try for a book. So please look into this and help me out to fix it.Vishal Joshi 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't use blogs as a reliable source because they are self-published sources and rarely go through an editorial process that we can verify. The reviews on GoodReads fall along the same lines, as it'd also be considered to be a SPS. As far as pages created by other people, the existence of other pages doesn't mean that this page should remain. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 12:16, 28 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A lack of adequate input here after two relistings leads to this close. However, a bold redirect could be performed if editors deem this to be appropriate. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch DJ Academy[edit]

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

Not notable, seems to be a glorified advertisement for a business with no real media coverage Dar-Ape 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 28 August 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 17:25, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam Master Jay#Career for now - This is actually a better article than it appears. Google News yielded nothing but a NYTimes search found results in the first three pages, Google Books and a few NYPost results as well. However, I don't see the model of the great and significant article this could be, so redirect for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have discounted non policy based arguments and there is a clear policy based consensus to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiislam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An apparent attack article on a website, no reliable sourcing for notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Majority of this article's information was taken Straight From the Source at http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam Therefore it IS NOT A PERSONAL REFLECTION, and Not even Close to "an apparent attack", as NatGertler has suggested; but most information on this site directly from the site's "About Us" page, or it is from the sources They list as their sources.

The references listed throughout this piece are all Verifiable and Notable sources and their online availability, but they are also available in hard copy form.

~~Keep~~These sources are listed to Directly support the information provided so that people can understand the site listed, and especially it's separateness from Wikipedia. I have changed that to word "anti" to "critique" as per their claim. This entry is meant to be INFORMATIVE. It is not an opinion of the author... it is Not an analysis. This article is important for people who find the site WikiIslam and believe it to be in association with Wikipedia and also who believe it to be an unbiased documentary of Islam. It is neither of these, and lovers of Wikipedia need to be aware.

~~Keep~~Plenty of citations for verification THROUGHOUT the piece... so How is that valid in your desire to have it deleted?

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam https://archive.org/stream/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslationEnglish/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslation#page/n0/mode/2up http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/ http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam https://archive.org/stream/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslationEnglish/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslation#page/n0/mode/2up http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/ http://quranproject.org/40-Hadith-on-the-Quran--575-d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Freedom_International#cite_note-5 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.wikiislam.net RichardDawkins.net; GreenProphet.com; Africa Today: Culture, Economics, Religion, Security, Dr. Heather Deegan, Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III: Reducing Risk, Improving Outcomes, Prof. Carlos Brebbia, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, Dr. Stefan Kirchner. --DawnshineKEEP (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--Dawnshine KEEP(talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)KEEP --Dawnshine (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the actual links you provide, you're linking to WikiIslam itself, which cannot establish its own notability; to a translation of the Quran, to a Quran project page, and to the front page of sahih-bukhari.com, none of which mention WikiIslam; to a Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia is not a reliable source), to Alexa, which is a database and does not connote notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I link to WikiIslam itself when I am referencing their own sites description of what they are "About", because those are Not my words I must reference them in the link to their "About Us" page, and people who are critical enough to check the references out, and Everyone should be, will be able to read the WikiIslam sites description of themselves and also understand they are not related to Wikipedia. Because WikiIslam reports using the Quran and hadiths, including the Sahih Bukhari, as some of its Main points of reference in it's opinion, and I mention this in the page, then it only is professional to create links to these published works. The fact that I mention these resources which again is from the WikiIslam site mentioning them, It is proper to cite a proper source for them, and of course They do not mention WikiIslam because they are ancient works which WikiIslam says they use in the support of their ideals; WikiIslam site does not do this, for the purpose of full disclosure to the reader of the page on WikiIslam, those sources mentioned Should have a link to direct people to them; but this page is ABOUT the WikiIslam site. It is imperative when writing on a subject to list the sources involved in the description. The readers may not know anything about the sources existence. That is the only way to show them as valid sources... How is this incorrect?? Alexa.com site is mentioned by WikiIslam in its Own reports on it's site usage, with a link; Again, since I mention this which is straight from the "About Us" page of WikiIslam, I listed the Link... This is BASIC proper writing citation, I mentioned the site, the site is an integral part of WikiIslam's description of itself, so Yes, of course a link is needed to that site.--Dawnshine (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the concern that we don't have links that establish notability of the site. Instead, you seem to be linking to things for the original research involved in your attacks. And before you claim that you are not doing attacks, just listing things put forth in their About Us page, where in their "About Us" do they make such assertions as "books containing the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, also considered important in the basic fundamental Islam ideology and doctrine, are not supporting of the articles in any way. If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[8] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well."? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consolidated some of the references, however the last "reference" seems to be a list of sources, not a single source, but the citations are incomplete. If these cite WikiIslam then they should be filled out as complete citations so that others can retrieve them. Also, I note that WikiIslam is not on the List_of_wikis, and perhaps should be, since many of those wikis have pages on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I am still working to get those last references that are supposed to list that website as their resource properly, so I can cite them properly. I will try to get this page to meet the Wikipedia standards before the day is over. Yes, the suggestion for being on the list of wikis is excellent and will help people separate it from wikipedia as well, thanks so much.--Dawnshine (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)~~*Keep~~[reply]

Delete. Very little in the way of reliable references and lots of original research Deb (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the references "very little" on reliability? Again they are from the direct source, as this is an informative on that source, as well the sources that site references as to it's popularity, AND of course internal links to Wiki pages on the subjects that site also references about it's subject for creation of the site. Most of the information is DIRECTLY FROM THE SITE THIS PAGE IS DESIGNED TO INFORM ABOUT. What could be more reliable about the purpose and subject of a site, than the site's self-description itself? This is an Important page to have so people searching for Wikipedia articles do Not confuse the website WikiIslam with Wikipedia's pages on that same subject. --Dawnshine (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) If there is "original research" outside of attempting to create accurate and proper citations, I will remedy that issue.--Dawnshine (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try to understand - the fact that you created the article doesn't give you an infinite number of "votes" and the closing admin won't be fooled into thinking that you are more than one person. In order for the website to be notable, it must meet the notability criteria for websites, which entails providing multiple independent references. So far you have failed to do this. Deb (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)Note - WikiIslam is not a reliable source for establishing the reliability of WikiIslam; in fact, as a user-edited site, it's not a reliable source in general, for the same reasons why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, you don't need to keep adding your Keep notations to your messages; your !vote is already listed. If for some reason you're changing your !vote, then list the new vote and strike through the previous one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOGIVE ME for not knowing as much as you two OBVIOUSLY do about how this works. I was trying to follow the rules that said if you want to keep add "keep" to your discussion... I'm signing my name (also still figuring out) so of course, I am not trying to "fool" anyone Deb. But, thanks all for your vote of confidence... Your objections are not entirely incorrect, but certainly not correct either.... and seem to be subject to your personal desire to not have this page on Wikipedia, despite many similar errors in other Wikipedia pages. But, the sources I list are not invalid. And as I said also, I am improving the citations and Still working on that to get this page as perfect as possible, considering it is just a page about the existence of a website.... Dawnshine (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)--Dawnshine (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there are problems on other pages does not mean that we should ignore the problems with this page. I encourage you to help address the problems that you find on other pages. I spend a lot of time doing that myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do intend to do that. This is the first time I've written anything for Wikipedia; otherwise my contributions have only been grammar correction and money. So... I am very new to this and DO want to create a proper page and feel there is a definite need for this page on Wikipedia... So that being said, with the faults that this page has/had (as I am actively attempting to correct it) I think a call for Deletion is overboard... This is not a soapbox for my opinion. And the 7 additional associations about problems with this page:

   Category:All articles needing additional references
   Category:All articles needing style editing
   Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability
   Category:Articles for deletion
   Category:Articles needing additional references from August 2014
   Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from August 2014
   Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing from August 2014

Also seems a bit over board.... Does this page really have ALL of those problems??? I am willing and capable of writing a decent piece... so please assist with guiding criticism instead of bombarding with rejection that will not improve this page at all or just get it deleted because of people apparently not wanting this page to exist for whatever reason.--Dawnshine (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things to realize about those categories:

They are not being carefully crafted for this article by some editor. Rather, they are put on there through automatic processes. For example, when I used a feature of the editing tool Twinkle to mark this page as having unclear notability, that added the two categories about "unclear notability" (I'm not sure why it ended up being two.
These categories are not intended to be a punishment or to brand the article as unclean; they are actually a call for other editors to help. An editor who wants to add references to articles that need it can go While the tags at the top of the article are visible to anyone reading the article (again intended as a call for help), the categories you list are invisible to the standard reader of the article.

As to whether the article has all these problems, you've really got three problems (needs additional references, needs style editing, the topic has unclear notability) and a status (that there is an Articles For Deletion discussion going on about this... which is clearly true, here it is.) The unclear notability is true - there references currently in the article do not show that it meets the notability criteria for articles about websites. I appreciate that you have recently tried to expand the links, but the key sentence in that notability guideline is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." So your references from WikiIslam itself do not count toward that, as it is not independent of itself; your reference to the old Dawkins site doesn't count because it said all of 13 words about the site - that's trivial. And your reference to various articles or books using information from the site do not count, because they are not talking about the site, merely using the site as a reference work. The need for additional references and the style problems overlap, as they are both grounded in the point of view problem the article has - when you include an unsourced statement like "If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[6] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well", that does not appear to be some neutral analysis from some reliable source (hence a lack-of-reference problem), but rather your own personal analysis, which is outside the style of the content for Wikipedia (hence a style problem).

As for why editors are seeking to delete it, I think both editors that have cast that !vote have made it clear that they don't think this subject qualifies for Wikipedia due to the notability problems. That's actually probably the most common reason for article deletion; it's not some sort of special targeting of this article. And if you manage to find multiple significant articles in reliable sources about WikiIslam, that will show the notability and certainly my own delete !vote will be retracted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you so much for clarifying all that to me. I've added a reference that seems to meet the criteria http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11562-007-0002-2 Vol.1, Iss.1, pg 53-67 ... this is in a professional journal which specifies this site in-particular...and am seeking more as well, to cover the possible point of view issue... maybe that just needs to be re-worded. I've found many other resources that discuss WikiIslam... but most of them do not seem to meet notability requirements, but I'm not totally for sure. I will try to make sure they meet that list (thanks for listing link, sometimes I get lost on here and have a hard time getting back to those guideline pages as there are many pages referencing or other). Dawnshine (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Also doesn't this site count http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.wikiislam.net ? Still, I will search for more and be sure to check the list. Thanks again.[reply]

No, Alexa doesn't count toward notability. They are a database on just about every domain, automatically generated. As such, it doesn't show that something is notable, merely that it exists. That journal article is a good step, but it is just one, we do need multiple. (In fact, if you review the discussion the last time that an article on WikiIslam was deleted through an AFD discussion - you'll see a link to that discussion at the top of this page -- you'll find that that journal article was the primary defense, and it proved in sufficient in itself to prevent the deletion.) If you can find another article on the level of significance of that journal article, you're in much better position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Weak Keep): The user who created the article is most likely not familiar with the policies of Wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability and for a website, that has been linked in this discussion already: Wikipedia:Notability (web) which says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms". So we need multiple reliable non-trivial sources. So far the user who created the article (Dawnshine; page history) has not provided any reliable sources with significant coverage. If anyone wants to save the article, there may be some reliable sources found on their About page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam#References . You will have to look for yourself and see if anything can qualify for a reliable source with non-trivial coverage. The website has been the subject of two research papers by the same author (Goran Larson). His name is present on the references list there and the author of the article has used one of those papers [48]. This may or may not qualify for WP:RS. I personally dont believe there is enough non-trivial coverage found in multiple reliable sources. Other than that the author is also violating WP:OR (this has also been pointed out above) by making statements like these:

"However, if the valid resources supporting it's articles are researched for accuracy, one will quickly find that almost All of it's references to the"
"If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[6] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well."
"And therefore, does have a strong history with Faith Freedom International"
"although the support of these resources to their unique critique's on Islam is questionable, as often it does not reflect their opinion."
In addition: "however most recent data about WikiIslam.net on Alexa.com shows a decline in visits," - This is false. Alexa's traffic ranking shows an increase in ranking (see the global rank number).

Everyone here knows that the website itself cannot be used as a measure of notability so all that goes out. So in its present shape the article probably does not qualify for the policies unless additional non-trivial reliable sources are found and after that all the OR will have to be removed and non-reliable sources and self-published sources (the website itself) should be removed or reduced significantly. I suggest the author should move the content to a temporary page until they can read and understand Wikipedia policies and then work on the article and give it another try later. --Hallonicw (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are four articles from peer reviewed journals and also someone did a nice clean up of my apparent bias and lacking. Thanks so much! And also thanks for suggesting the "temporary page" thing... That will be a huge help for me. Although since this page has been cleaned up so well and now has 4 notable sources, I don't think I will have to do that with this particular page (1st for me). What say y'all? Dawnshine (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Oh yeah and I did at first check all the referenced sites listed by Wikiislam, but almost all of them are blogs or other website communities that feel the need to defend against or criticize the Wikiislam site, not necessarily in an academic manner (unfortunately), so they didn't seem to fit the "notable" guidelines and I've not listed them at all.Dawnshine (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two research papers with non-trivial coverage so now we have multiple non-trivial reliable sources but they are by the same author (Goran Larson) which makes the situation a little weak (I think). The other two papers give trivial coverage, such as only mentioning the URL of one of the pages so they dont help much for the requirement of "non-trivial" coverage. It would be nice if there are additional sources. --Hallonicw (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two papers are same author but different journals, which does carry some weight (we're sort of at one-and-a-half here, in some measures). I'm dealing with some temporary physical pain which is interrupting smooth thought processes, so I'm not going to make a decision on recasting my !vote at the moment. I agree that if we do end up with a "delete", this would be a good candidate for userfication (that's a temporary page in your own space, Dawnshine), as the editor could keep an eye for new sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your physical pain and it's affect on thinking (mind-body wars ever constant it seems). I think that I will try the temporary page thing if I can figure it out... I still back this page being in existence, but it is hard to find any decent coverage of it... I can't believe wikiquotes lives up beyond this, or pages like American Thinker, and I could probably find hundreds that have not more than 2 notable sources with them as a Main topic (instead of just citation of a short reference, which wikiislam has plenty of in various reputable sources)... Regardless, I think this page is very important to have. Wikiislam.net is Extremely popular and comes up first, second, and third on most searches under the subjects related to its commentary, Islam. It is because of the confusion people have in believing a "wiki" site to be related to wikipedia, I think this wikiislam page is necessary here, on Wikipedia... And since wikipedia is an information site, the existence of such a popular site as wikiislam should be something people CAN look up on Wikipedia... especially since wikipedia has dedicated much of its pages to various aspects of the religion that wikiislam covers, even though it does not top wikiislam in a search. It is something to consider because of the masses who use wikipedia and do Not realize there is a difference or no affiliation between these sites, and because of the different standards between the sites on what type of information is published...it is very important for people to have more opportunity to see that they are not affiliated by having this page here. I don't know how to explain that, but as a wikipedia fan, I believe such confusion to be a problem that this page could remedy easily most of the time. Dawnshine (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mostly all invalid reasons to make a page on the subject (differentiating between Wikipedia and wikiislam; search results ranking; website being popular). The one and only reason that has to be satisfied is notability (non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources). I think the article could be kept if its kept a stub with some valid sources (there are two papers and the site's own pages could be used for some 'about' info). A lot of OR has been taken out so thats good. I leave it up to the admins. You can keep a copy in your userspace. --Hallonicw (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - as the person who started this AFD, I am switching my !vote to "neutral"; the amount of sourcing is on the fuzzy edge of acceptable, and I'm not feeling up to determining where in that fuzz the edge is. I reserve the right to change my mind further before the end of the AFD, of course, and there is further work to be done to address the focus of the article. (Naming wikis "wikisomething" is pretty standard in the wiki world, and the use of Mediawiki software is common; we don't need to be making a big deal about what-this-isn't as long as we're explaining what it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of these sources are very poor, and "cited by a notable person" (eg. Dawkins) doesn't confer notability. Some of the journals are good, but I don't think that constitutes enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I could be persuaded if someone with access to Contemporary South Asia and Journal of Religion and Popular Culture could show that their coverage was more than a brief "mention" as the article says. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to seek out sources... I do have access to most of these journals and have downloaded many of the articles, although I have not read through them all completely to see how much exact coverage is on this site.... But it is a very popular site and if anyone is going to have mention of it's existence, an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, should indeed. I will save a copy in my userspace just in case... are you referring to the "sandbox" I was not sure, and I also was afraid that saving it there would prompt it to be added as a page again... ? But, yes I would like to have that, just in case. However, as there is a great number of wiki pages and many of them listed on Wikipedia as such, even if they are quite lacking in being noticed by "notable sources", this seems like another good reason for this page to exist and be part of that acknowledgement. However, there are actually 5 peer reviewed articles that mention Wikiislam described on this page, and 3 of them definitely go into more detail about content on the site, and a couple of books with reputable publishers that utilize the website's content. I have been reading through the notability requirements on Wikipedia... and it seems to state that if the web-content itself receives notice by a notable source, that makes the web content notable. And this page is for the purpose of WikiIslam's content, not anything else... It is truly a very indepth, extensive, massive site that is utilized for it's content primarily.... by many sources, including notable ones who quote and reference it in their own works. This is not disputable even if someone has not written a book specifically on the site... as most are written on the subject matter that the site encompasses and expands upon, and thus the content found therein is what is written on in some fashion. Dawnshine (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of sources mention the subject in passing or merely cite wikiislam; many of these sources are self-published. These can be removed so let's focus on what remains. There are two sources that make Wiiislam the main topic. Contemporary Islam is reliable, has a respectable editorial board, and published by a respectable academic publisher. But does every article in a journal deserve a wikipedia page? It isn't clear that Wikiislam is the subject but rather a case study for the subject, the subject being Internet representation or misrepresentation of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I generally don't try to use the adjective "strong" during AfDs as it makes one seem too pushy. In this case, however, it is warranted. Of the sources which aren't links to Wikiislam itself, some are simply irrelevant to the subject. It's very clear that this is just some non-notable off-site Wikia for a few people and there's no justification for this article at all. At all. Hence the "strong" adjective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One's opinion of a "respectable editorial board" doesn't take away the fact that it is academically accepted as a peer reviewed journal... Or there would Constantly be a dispute about a peer journal's significance and worthiness in academia projects... That's why it is already limited to Peer reviewed journals... And "does every article in a journal deserve a wikipedia"? Great question... why don't you sleuth through the pages here and find some truly non-notable pages that have never been up for deletion? WikiIslam is Not an "off-site" it is The source that people of all varieties of works use as a source for their work, some less notable than others no doubt, but non the less extremely popular, not at all for only a few people... Everyone who has Ever done any research into the religion of Islam will find themselves on this site (since it's creation). There are entire blog pages dedicated to this occurrence, and as listed (not a full list) plenty of published works, plenty notable as well as not, that use this site's content for some of their main objectives in their work.Dawnshine (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Strong" delete? Seriously? As if this page is somehow totally degraded,meaningless babble? No. I don't think so. There are THREE peer reviewed journals that have articles specifically related to the content on Wikiislam: Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, Contemporary Islam, Cyber Orient two peer reviewed journals that use it's content as a source for their work, Journal of Religious and Popular Culture and Contemporary South Asia; there is another notable British magazine Emel Magazine with a site specific article, and a book by Routledge publishing and one by Palgrave Macmillan, notable publishers, that use the site's content specifically for part of their work. There are several other peer reviewed journals I am reviewing now that utilize WikiIslam's content for their work. This More than qualifies according to Wikipedia's standards. And thanks all who work with cleaning up my style of writing, as I am not accustomed to writing in encyclopedic form and can't quite tell where to edit it. "if the web-content itself receives notice by a notable source, that makes the web content notable" Dawnshine (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnshine, that thing that you just put in quotes isn't an actual quote; it appears to be a reworking of "If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable" from our notability guidelines on web content... but that's just being used to explain that web content does not inherit notability. It does not mean that the converse is true. I can say "if it doesn't come from France, then it isn't real champagne", but that doesn't mean that all things that come from France are real champagne. And that "Great question... why don't you sleuth through the pages here and find some truly non-notable pages that have never been up for deletion?" gambit just doesn't work; if we cannot address perceived problems in one place because there are also perceived problems in other places, then no problems will ever get addressed. --17:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Important note: The closer will most likely notice that of the six "keep" votes, five are from the same person (who is also the creator of the article). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnshine, the Baltic journal is a trivial mention (a link to the site's article). All that can be done is to hope that more non-trivial mentions can be made. You would increase the chances of the article being kept if you deleted everything else but the two journals and then keep only a small amount of "about" info. In other words if you try to pass off trivial mentions as references it weakens the article. You should copy the text now into your userspace to work on as it may soon be deleted. Also your multiple "keeps" dont help. You need to spend a lot of time being familiar with wikipedia policies and how people conduct their business here (false quotes as pointed out should not be done) and how to use the English language. Quotes are for quoting something, not for emphasizing your personal viewpoint. --Hallonicw (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the administrator will closely evaluate all of this information (including the "keeps"), all the opinions here, and all of the efforts for improvement that have went into the page from it's initial creation (and hopefully many more will improve upon it in time), and make a good decision about its worthiness of Wikipedia.Dawnshine (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Also, I was quoting myself from an earlier post here, so the the quotes are not from my lacking in English grammar, but thanks for the hate. And, if you had actually Read through all these arguments, you would have noticed that I did not understand the "keep" thing initially. And, there is no greater way to learn how to do something, than to try and do it and making mistakes. Reading through all of Wikipedia's policies and their various pages, helps some, but can be overwhelming and confusing. And, I certainly don't mind valid criticism and referrals to help me understand, without superficial metaphors. Dawnshine (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Meyer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Her daughter is WP:NOTABLE but WP:Notability is not inherited. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created in 2004-and this is the first time someone has questioned notability-the article provides information about a well-known celebrity, who often talks about her mother in interviews, considering her mother died youngish. Mrs. Meyer was a performer in her own right as well, it's not like she was a housewife. Therefore WP:Notability is not inherited is debunked. Bullock has stated she started performing, singing and being on tour with her mother [[49]] it says here [[50]] that her mother was a resident singer at Staatstheater Nürnberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HesioneHushabye (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 August 2014‎

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as a singer, which is her only possible claim to notability. According to this, she sang at Salzburg once in 1977, and who even knows what role she sang? (BTW, that little blurb about her is all over the web.) If she sang somewhere else, I can't find it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She may not have been part of the A List among opera singers, but her name turns up almost every time her daughter is mentioned in German newspapers and magazines. Many English publications do likewise. Deleting this article would create an unnecessary gap in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia is comprehensive -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If her name turns up regularly in connection only with her daughter, then the info should be in Sandra Bullock#Early life, and I wouldn't object to a merge there. But clearly not independently notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I think there is enough for Helga to have her own stub article, versus merging into Sandra's article, for more comprehensive insight. There is clearly a public interest in knowing about her. She was in her height it seems in Europe in the 70s, which is why your're not going to find specific info on her career from a normal Google search. HesioneHushabye (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on August 23, 2014, and with one minor exception, has done nothing but vote at various AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage, and notability is not inherited, not even from two daughters. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the references are about Sandra Bullock, not Helga. This could be kept only if there were references about Helga herself. One comment suggests that there are references from Germany that do not appear here, but there is no entry in the German language wiki (which, by the way, is much stricter about notability than the @en wiki). If she is known in Germany, than the @de wiki would be the appropriate place for an article. LaMona (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability. It doesn't help in searching for sources that there's a more notable opera singer and teacher with almost the same name (and no article here), Helga Meyer-Wagner. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everything is in light of her daughter. Even the German press doesn't report on her, but on Bullock and then happily talks about the German connection, and they're not even in serious periodicals that cover opera. Her most notable claim in the article is that she was in a "featured role" in Salzburg, but the source barely mentions Salzburg in passing, doesn't say what role, or when she appeared there. Are we that desperate for articles that we should keep one about an opera singer and her show dog? Such trivia is usually reserved for silly celeb articles. This is an article about a non-notable, minor singer with a famous daughter.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page averages 200 views a day and has been on Wikipedia since 2004. Even if it's hard to find a source devoted clearly to Helga, she also has been deceased for a decade and was at her height in Germany in the 70s so there is a reason for that. many, many, actors/singers who have less claim to notability have stub articles on Wiki. There are dozens of articles where Helga is mentioned even if she is not the headline. HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the name to the relevant section of Sandra Bullock. Meyer has zero independent notability and the article is just a bunch of vague padding which cannot disguise this. I've checked the archives of the Salzburg Festival and there is no mention of her. Nor can I can I find any other coverage of her as an opera singer. Normally in cases like this where specific roles and productions are not mentioned (as in the vague assertions in the news coverage of Bullock), it's because they were very minor. The 1970s is not too long ago to be able to find reviews, etc. if indeed she had sung leading roles in leading opera houses and festivals or appeared on any recordings. She doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO and she doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: support all the arguments for delete, especially Voceditenore's idea to re-direct to Bullock article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:02, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close as delete- if the discussion has been relisted once to get a consensus, and you subsequently get five well-argued unanimous delete opinions, then clearly consensus has been established. This should have been closed as delete instead of being relisted again. Reyk _YO! 07:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close as delete: Agree with Reyk above. Consensus clearly established to delete. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:40, 8 September 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. SNGs are essentially shorthand for material that should have sources. that's why they generally have some reference to articles need to meet the Gng in the. what we have here is a massive discussion about the abstruse points of an SNG when the article evidently does not meet the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and mechanics of complex systems[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator after adding reference showing indexing by MathSciNet. However, this database strives to be comprehensive and is therefore not selective. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page, so I don't know whether I can vote. Anyway please note that MathSciNet is, as a matter of fact, selective. It strives to be comprehensive, but only about journals of a certain level, as shown in my opinion by two simple facts: i) not every mathematics journal is indexed in MathSciNet, and all major ones are ii) in all 2013 (the year in which Memocs was indexed) MathSciNet added just 16 journals to its database. JeromKJerom (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may certainly comment here, but this is not a vote but a discussion. Feel free to make any points that are relevant, based in Wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for some guidance. Deltahedron (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, I would like to point out that it appears to me that User:JeromKJerom's response means that they oppose deletion of this article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I represent the publisher and I would like to make the case for the page to stay; among other distinctions MEMOCS is one of very few diamond open-access journals (diamond = no page charges) in math that publishes both online and in hard copy. But above all I'm puzzled by the remark that MEMOCS does not meet WP:NJournals. The guidelines there seem to regard listing on Web of Science or Scopus as sufficient, and any mathematician will tell you that they will take MathSciNet's ranking and selectivity over Web of Science's for journals in the field. Also WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet as a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal. It is true that Web of Science takes longer to list new journals, especially from small publishers, since they have a large bureaucracy; but all our other research journals are listed by Web of Science and I have no doubt that MEMOCS will too in the near future. (We've applied recently, as Scopus told us they wanted two years of continuous publication before they'd consider the application. MEMOCS is about to start its third year.) Codairem (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet. In fact for the last 4 years it has saud Coverage in PubMed alone is therefore not enough to fulfil the requirements of Criterion 1. The same applies to MathSciNet. This is not the same as "a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal". In fact it is the opposite. Deltahedron (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is also true that WP:NJournals mentions MathSciNet in #3 (Citation indexes) which, "in individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts." To me, this satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NJournals. Therefore, this journal meets the requirements for inclusion according WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion #1 is not the only option. I surprised no one pointed this out. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I linked to above, our "resident mathematics expert" stated that MathSciNet is not selectuive, but strives for comprehensiveness. Both WoS and Scopus will often include journals much earlier than after two years, but perhaps they only do that for major publishers. Scopus is not very selective any more, so not being included in that one is not a good sign. If the journal gets accepted in Scopus or WoS, we can restore the article, but at this point, this is simply too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About the two years, that's what Scopus told us. Can you clarify what we need to do to restore the article once we're indexed by Scopus or WoS? (i.e., do we send email somewhere, or bookmark this page and come back to it, or??) Silvio Levy (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can simply contact me on my user talk page and I'll help you doing it. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my esperience, I think that MathSciNet is actually quite selective, and the editorial board appears more than respectable to me. Moreover I think it is pointless to ask a very "young" journal to be extensively indexed. So: Maintain. Cesalpino (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meaning that any young journal should get a free ride? And regarding the editorial board: notability is not inherited. Please base your !vote on policy, otherwise it will be ignored, I'm afraid. What you're saying is basically the point that I have been making: such a young journal cannot be expected to have established notability (in the WP sense) already. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. WP:IAR, on the other hand, is certainly policy. Arguments based on IAR may be accorded less weight, and perhaps even minimal weight, but, unless they are obviously absurd, they should not be accorded zero weight. James500 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm confused. You wrote that both WoS and Scopus will often include journals much earlier than after two years. And WP:NJournals says listing in WoS or Scopus is sufficient to establish notability. These two, taken together, would seem to be in contradicton with the assertion that such a young journal cannot be expected to have established notability.
  — It seems to me that you're saying that while notability can't be inherited via the excellence of the Editorial Board, you're happy for it to be inherited by virtue of being owned by a large publisher with an established relationship with Thomson Reuters and Scopus that can speed up its indexing. (Notice that Scopus is owned by Elsevier, and however ethically correct their relationship may be, the fact remains that we were told we should only apply after two years of publication, whereas, as you say, other journals get indexed much earlier.)
  — Finally, I haven't seen anyone advocate that any young journal should get a free ride. The point is that any young journal good enough to be listed in MathSciNet (and also Zentralblatt MATH, in this case) has at least a good a claim to notability as being listed on Scopus. -- Codairem = Silvio Levy (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Silvio Levy there is no policy or guideline that says a journal must be in existence for any length of time. For example if it was acceptably indexed on day two, then it merits inclusion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that journal is worth mentioning. It has a marked international character and has among its contributors authors long since present in en.wiki, so I vote in favour of keeping the page.

Btw, why was someone asking to motivate the vote? AFAIK the decision about the deletion of a page is just a simple voting process, and we can't ignore a vote just because someone doesn't like its (provided) motivation.

Canpacor (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will read it, thanks. Canpacor (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Indexing in MathSciNet meets WP:NJOURNALS alone. Zentralblatt MATH further drives the point home. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The policy of ZMATH is "zbMATH covers all available published and peer-reviewed articles" and "Provided that the suggested journal falls within the scope described above, our staff will contact the publisher for the arrangement of a suitable data delivery procedure". So they do not have a quality or notability threshold beyond being peer-reviewed and published. In particular this does not meet the criterion no.1 "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area."

The essay Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) explicitly states that it does not override the Wikipedia:Verfiability policy for reliable third-party sources: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Are there such sources for this article? Deltahedron (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are! That's exactly what MathSciNet and ZBMath are: reliable third-party sources. I quote from WP:NJournals: [criterion 1 for inclusion:] "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. [...] The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." Are you arguing that MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH are not the major indexing services in the field of mathematics? If so, what are they? Silvio Levy (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable third-party sources are required by WP:V to write a non-trivial article. It is is clear that MR and ZM do not take a position on whether this or any other journal is influential simply by including it. It may or may not be typical for other major indexing services to only include influential journals, I couldn't say. What I do say is that this is clearly not the case in mathematics. Deltahedron (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says no such thing. James500 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Quite corrent, it is WP:N. Deltahedron (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, I was right the first time: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Deltahedron (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That quote cleary does not say that reliable sources must "write a non-trivial article" about the topic. James500 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: looking at Science Citation Index, for example, this is described as "covers more than 6,500 notable and significant journals[...] described as the world's leading journals of science and technology, because of a rigorous selection process" This is very different. Deltahedron (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron, to start with your last point: for articles on academic journals, we usually take the info that the publisher provides to source uncontroversial stuff (like when the journal started, who is the editor-in-chief, etc). If a journal is listed by Thomson Reuters, we can also include an impact factor and such. As for the selectivity, I am not a specialist in mathematics, which is why I asked David Eppstein first about whether MathSciNet is selective. According to him, it is not. Zentralblatt MATH was added during the AfD, so I asked David about that one, too, and according to him the two are very similar. the policy that you cited above confirms this: important databases for mathematicians, absolutely, but not selective. So I still think that WP:NJournals is not met. And if that one isn't met, then GNG is most certainly not met... --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, codairem (Silvio Levy) here. I suspect your last reply is to my 3-paragraph entry above, not to Deltahedron, and I suggest you move it (together with this reply) up there. As far as I can see, by asking Eppstein whether MathSciNet is selective, you're shifting the goalposts, because WP:NJournals says nothing about "selective". It says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." If you don't believe me when I say MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH are the major indexing services in the field of mathematics, feel free to ask Eppstein. Silvio Levy (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the question is not whether MR and ZM are major reviewing services in mathematics, no-one is disputing that. The issue is about the interpretation of the comment "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." in the essay WP:NJournals. Firstly, this is an essay, representing the opinion of a group of editors. It isn't a law to be followed down to the letter. Secondly, the word "typical" is significant here. It may well be typical that the amjor indexing services are selective: SCI certainly is. MR and ZB are not. See, for example, Caveat 1 "The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field". I can understand that the journal publisher's director of publishing wants to make the strongest possible case for inclusion of one of his journals, but I would suggest you have made the points that need to be made and that further repetition is counter-productive. Deltahedron (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is (another) weak point in NJournals, but one that nobody else ever saw before... In these AfD discussions we usually determine whether the databases showing notability for a journal are selective, for rather obvious reasons. Google Scholar is rapidly becoming the most important search machine being used by researchers. However, they are basically not selective at all and will include any journal calling itself academic. Hence, being included in GS or any similarly nonselective database is no distinction at all and does not show notability. This needs to be changed in NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is also true that WP:NJournals mentions MathSciNet in #3 (Citation indexes) which, "in individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts." To me, this satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NJournals. Therefore, this journal meets the requirements for inclusion according WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion #1 is not the only option. I surprised no one pointed this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJournals. Criterion 1 of NJournals (the one we are discussing) states "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", so satisfying this criterion by virtue of being included in an index can only work if those journals are sufficiently selective, selective enough that they only take the influential journals. I don't think this is true of MathSciNet and Zentralblatt — they take essentially all journals in their topic area, so inclusion provides no information about whether the journal is influential. There is no other evidence of passing any of the NJournals criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Another possibility would be to Merge and redirect into Mathematical Sciences Publishers (its publisher). r.e.b. (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This journal is listed in MathSciNet and in Zentralblatt MATH. As far as I know these are reliable third party sources for the mathematics field, and as far as I know both are selective. We've already had this discussion, perhaps two years ago, with WikiProject Mathematics editors, when some were adding Mathematics academic journals to Wikipedia. I think trivializing these databases requires sources to back up that they are trivial. WOS is not the only selective database. Also, we go by what WP:NJOURNALS says more than stated opinions.

Personally, I would appreciate it if some editors would stop willy nilly deciding on their own that certain databases are no longer acceptable, when they are considered acceptable. For example, Scopus is acceptable, but maybe not to some editors's liking (WP:DONTLIKE). ---Steve Quinn (talk)

I quoted above the ZM satement from [51] which shows clearly that it is not selective about the journals it covers, beyond their being published and peer-reviewed: perhaps you missed it. This is not to say that it is trivial, merely that it is comprehensive rather than selective in its coverage. Deltahedron (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: compare this quote with "Thomson Reuters is committed to providing comprehensive coverage of the world's most important and influential journals" [52]: you will see clearly that one is comprehensive and the other is selective. This is not a value judgement, indeed the value of MR and ZM to researchers lies partly in their comprehensiveness. Deltahedron (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MathSciNet is equal to Thomson Reuters according to the previous discussions with the math people over at WikiProject Mathematics. I think the same is true for Zentralblatt MATH. In fact, Zentralblatt MATH only indexes 3500 journals [53] - that sounds very similar to the Thomson Reuter's Web of Science Platform. So, at only 3500 journals, I would say ZH is highly selective. OK - here - the Web of Science indexes 12,000 journals [54]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what proportion of all mathematics journals do you think "only" 3500 is? Deltahedron (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And WoS includes all types of academic journals, not just mathematics, from Astronomy to Zimbabwean literature studies. How many of those 12,000 journals it has will be mathematics, you think? There are 299 journals in the category "Mathematics", 250 in "Mathematics, Applied", and 96 in "Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications". Even if we assume (incorrectly) that no journal appears in more than 1 category, that's a far cry from the 3500 in Zentralblatt MATH or MathSciNet. Given what we learned about these latter two, they should be removed from NJournals (unless one would like to use them in a different way: not being included in either of these two is proof of not being notable...) --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm not arguing to the main point anymore, but wish to dispel a misunderstanding.) ZB doesn't index 3500 math journals, or anywhere near it. What its front page says is that it has entries from 3500 journals. Most are not math journals per se; for instance, a tiny fraction of articles in the Proceeding of the NAS is math. ZB culls articles with significant math content from just about all good journals in the sciences and engineering, from "Phys. Rev. Letters" to "Sound and Vibration" -- if an article is important to mathematicians, it is potentially added to ZB. Also many of the journals are historical -- ZB incorporates the Jahrbuch fur Mathematik that was published starting in the 1800s. So comparing the 600 math journals of WoS with the the 3500 journals of ZB is apples and oranges. Silvio Levy (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this merely supports the underlying point that ZM aims to be comprehensive: in other words, to index any journal that publishes peer-reviewed mathematics. The numbers are not important, it's the difference between being comprehensive and selective. ZM's decision to index a journal is not, as WP:NJOURNALS requires, indication that it is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". Incidentally, I'm not persuaded by the introduction of the words "good" or "important". I don't see those in their policy statement zbMATH covers all available published and peer-reviewed articles [55]. Deltahedron (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have opened a general discussion of this point at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Mathematical_Reviews_and_Zentralblatt. Deltahedron (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers. The reasoning at the WP:NJOURNALS essay makes it clear that coverage in selective indexes is what is required, and MR and ZM are comprehensive rather than selective. Deltahedron (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Will "merge and redirect" impact the ease with which the present article can be reinstated once the journal is listed on WoS and/or Scopus? If so, it might be best just to temporarily remove the page. Silvio Levy (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. A Wikipedia:Redirect is just a page with a bit of code that automatically forwards to another page. If you replace the code with regular text again, then there is a perfectly normal article instead. Deltahedron (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the point is MathSciNet (about 2,000 journals) and Zentralblatt MATH are highly selective databases, just as any of the Web of Science platforms, such as Science Citation Index. Whether or not a service indexes a potpourri or mixed bag of disciplines doesn't matter. It only matters that the indexing service is selective and therefore qualifies as an independent reliable source. Hence, this includes MathSciNet, Zentralblatt MATH, Science Citation Index, Chemical Abstracts Service, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that this journal is qualified for inclusion. Also, here is a list of the serials and journals indexed by MathSciNet [56]. ------ Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for that assertion. Can you point to any statement by the publishers of MR or ZM that provides a selection criterion beyond a mathematics journal being published and peer-reviewed? That is not being "highly selective", quite the opposite, it is being comprehensive. Indeed claiming that that criterion is selective dilutes the meaning of the word to the point where it becomes useless for the current discussion. MR and ZM indexing a journal is evidence that it exists and is peer-reviewed. That is very far from saying that it "influential in its subject area". Can you point to any assessment in a reliable third-party source that msays that inclusion in MR or ZB makes a journal influential? I think not, but feel free to do so, if you can. I have already provided a clear statement from ZM that the opposite of what you claim is true. Deltahedron (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NJOURNALS#C1 says "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." I don't think that merely indexing in MathSciNet or Zentralblatt is sufficient. These services aim to be comprehensive, without any regard for the impact that the journal has in mathematics. The subject of the article might be notable for other reasons, but the case for C1, if it is to be based entirely on indices, seems very weak. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. The only way in which the subject could be notable is under WP:NJOURNALS#C1. But as already convincingly argued, mere presence in some comprehensive listing of mathematics journals does not qualify under this criterion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at the journal website and at one of the articles, and they convey the impression that this is a quality journal; but Wikipedia requires independent sources to establish notability, and the journal is still young enough that it doesn't seem to have those – yet. (MathSciNet and Zentralblatt are no evidence of notability.) I will have no prejudice against recreating the article when there is some evidence that the journal is notable. Based on Silvio Levy's statements above, I expect that to happen soon (say, within the next year or two). Ozob (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the word "comprehensive" in this instance is being misunderstood. "Comprehensive" means comprehensive coverage of a limited number of journals. Both MR and ZH limit the number of journals they cover; there is a cutoff - this means they are selective. So, no they are not quite the opposite in meaning. Also, User:JeromKJerom in the first statement has explained how Mathematical Reviews works - "please note that MathSciNet is, as a matter of fact, selective. It strives to be comprehensive, but only about journals of a certain level, as shown in my opinion by two simple facts: i) not every mathematics journal is indexed in MathSciNet, and all major ones are ii) in all 2013 (the year in which Memocs was indexed) MathSciNet added just 16 journals to its database".

User Codairem, stated above "and any mathematician will tell you that they will take MathSciNet's ranking and selectivity over Web of Science's for journals in the field. Also WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet as a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal".

The same think came up in discussions about MR and ZB. We encountered similar issues. Therefore, I say let's listen to the mathematicians, who know their field. And basing an entire argument on the word "comprehensive" is not he best argument. Here is why....

Although ZH "covers the entire field of mathematics" - this is not the same thing as covering every single published mathematics journal in existence, as has been explicitly stated or implied.

This actually means ZH covers a limited number of journals (about 2000) which also cover the entire field of mathematics [57].

Heck, one journal can cover the entire field of mathematics, or in other words, cover all the major disciplines in mathematics - and ZH is a reviewing service - so, yeah, they could certainly cover the entire field of mathematics.

There are Physics journals that cover all the major disciplines in Physics. I am sure there are Chemistry journals that cover all the major Chemistry disciplines. It all depends on the research papers the particular journal accepts or decides to include. So, comprehensive in this instance means, comprehensively covering all the disciplines in mathematics, but limiting the number of journals covered to 2000, or 3500, or whatever. And that means there is selection process. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "comprehensive" in this instance reduces this argument to either / or which is incorrect. There is much more to this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Both MR and ZH limit the number of journals they cover; there is a cutoff - this means they are selective." Please provide evidence for that assertion. Are you claiming there is a numerical limit? If so, what is it, what proportion of all mathematics journals does it constitute, and most importantly, where is there an authoritative statement, either from MR and ZM or a reliable independent source, of what it is? If you mean that there is a threshold of importance and influence that they apply, again please say what it is, what proportion of journals if admits and rejects, and again give the evidence. I have shown that that ZM publicly state their criterion is that a journal be published and peer-reviewed. That is minimal threshold, and it is simply useless for the current discussion to describe it as selective. We do not aspire to have an article on every one of the thousands of mathematics journalssimply because they exist. We have to be able to make a useful statement about them, based on published reliable sources, or at least have some reason to believe that the journal is important or influential in some way. Merely existing is not enough. Deltahedron (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the cutoff numbers for MR [58] about 1800, and for ZM [59]. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Mathematical Reviews is mentioned in the WP:NJOURNALS guideline because is it uses a citation database [60] and a Mathematical Citation Quotient, which is apparently similar to computing an impact factor, for a given journal. The Charleston Advisor [61] reviewed the two databases in an article entitled "Mathematics Sites Compared: Zentralblatt MATH Database and MathSciNet" [62].

Also, I apologize if I came across as terse earlier in this discussion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of one single academic journal that comprehensively covers the field of mathematics - in other words it "publishes mainly research papers in in all fields of pure and applied mathematics" [63]. Also here is the recently created Wikipedia article that covers this journal (which covers the mathematical disciplines...) - Results in Mathematics. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does this other article have to do with this discussion? Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Deltahedron (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say to listen to the mathematicians; I am a mathematician, and I am perfectly aware of how MathSciNet and Zentralblatt work. Yes, there are things they don't index, but they are so nearly comprehensive that anything they don't index is a preprint, very old, or irrelevant to professional mathematics. Wikipedia's standards are more stringent than theirs, and for good reason: Wikipedia is neither an abstracts service nor a list of journals. Wikipedia has a simple but strict notability guideline, coverage in reliable secondary sources. While that is not a difficult threshold for many topics and many journals, it intentionally excludes some fine and respectable professional publications which have not achieved wide recognition. MEMOCS currently appears to be such a journal. As I said above, I have no prejudice about including it once it has met Wikipedia's criterion for notability, and I'm also open to the possibility that my assessment of its lack of notability is wrong. But the only argument that anyone seems to be putting forward for its notability is its inclusion in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt, and that is simply not sufficient. Ozob (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be obvious from my contributions, listed at my user page, that I am too. I agree with this comment wholeheartedly. Deltahedron (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deltahedron I should have looked at your user page sooner. I am impressed with the mathematics articles that you have created. So, yes, I agree that you are an authentic mathematician. However, I don't understand why there are differing opinions among mathematicians pertaining to MR and ZM. In the discussion three years ago, some of us non-mathematicians were convinced via discussion that ZM and MR have standing that serves Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Also, the two mathematicians that helped to open this discussion differ with your opinion. So, it's around and around we go. I was hoping more mathematicians from WikiProject Mathematics would join in. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on evidence and Wikipedia policy. The evidence is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)#Evidence. So far you have produced no evidence for your assertions about MR and ZM in spite of repeated requests to do so. Deltahedron (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Perhaps any journal publishers who happen to be reading might be in a position to answer the following questions. Roughly how many peer-reviewed mathematics research journals are there being published at present, and what proportion of them are indexed by Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt? What selection criteria do MR and ZM apply to journals before indexing them? In particular, do they require journal to be important and influential? Deltahedron (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers. This looks like a solid, reputable journal. But it is just starting out and has not yet had time to general impact factors and has not yet made it into selective indices. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Nonetheless, basic facts about the journal are verifiable in reliable sources like MathSciNet and Zentralblatt, and per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved rather than deleted. Until the journal gains notability, a listing at Mathematical Sciences Publishers is appropriate. The journal title is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted as well. No prejudice to re-creation when multiple reliable sources or membership in selective indices become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NJournals is only an essay, so "fails NJournals" is not argument for deletion. GNG doesn't work in reverse, so "fails GNG" isn't an argument for deletion either. In order to satisfy N, the journal must be "worthy of notice", something that ultimately isn't defined. It is suggested that inclusion in a sufficiently selective database indicates that a journal is worthy of notice. It is also suggested that MathSciNet and ZMath are not selective. Taken literally, that cannot be right. The two databases are incredibly selective. They intentionally exclude the vast majority of published literature. They are a lot more selective than, for example, Google. What is obviously being suggested is that they are not sufficiently selective compared to some essentially arbitrary standard, some line in the sand, represented by indexes like Scopus. I do not agree with the proposed location of that line. I don't see why a journal that, to use the words of the preceding !voter, looks "solid" and "reputable" shouldn't have an article. James500 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is number 6 on the list Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Deltahedron (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it is item 8 on that list. Deltahedron (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) NJournals isn't a notability guideline. (2) The deletion policy specifically refers to WP:N instead of WP:GNG. In my view that should be taken to refer to the whole of N including the introduction which appears to admit any topic that is "worthy of notice" within the ordinary meaning of that expression (which obviously can't be defined solely by reference to GNG and SNG). James500 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what a gem! You keep coming up with the most original interpretations of guidelines and policies that I've ever encountered on WP. Of course, the intro to WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true", one of them being that something verifiably meets WP:GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. Now you correctly state that NJournals is not a guideline but an essay. It was indeed designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged notable. If we put it aside as not being a guideline, then we'll have to apply GNG in full force and rare is the journal that meets GNG, this one certainly not. If "does not meet GNG, hence keep" would be a valid argument, my cleaning lady, who verifiably exists, could have her bio included, too and we could do away with PROD and AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that I am making is more along the lines that reputable peer reviewed journals included in MathSciNet and affiliated with a University are particularly significant, unusual, meritorious, interesting and so forth, compared to published literature as a whole which includes things like self published fiction, predatory journals and a lot of other junk. The analogy with your landlady is misleading. A closer analogy would be arguing that a big shot tycoon is objectively notable because he is rich and powerful and so forth. James500 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N does not say in express words that a topic that fails GNG and all SNG is inherently non-notable, or even that it is presumed to be non-notable. It is not obvious that it is meant to be construed that way either. Hence "fails GNG" isn't obviously a valid argument for deletion. James500 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that User:James500 is of the opinion that all academic journals likely to appear as sources should have articles [64]. Unfortunately this opinion runs contrary to Wikipedia policy on verifiability, that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It is not surprising that maintaining that opinion when it runs quite counter to policy requires a certain degree of originality. However, I am sure that whoever closes the discussion will give this novel interpretation exactly the weight it deserves. Deltahedron (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no such opinion. The words "so far as possible" were meant to exclude conflict with policy. I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said. James500 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I have re-worded that essay in a way that I hope will be impossible to misconstrue and moved it to WP:SOURCEART. I would be grateful if in future you refrain from presuming to know what my opinions are. James500 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your precise words, the opening sentence of the diff I gave, are "Wikipedia needs, so far as is possible, an article on every substantial publication that is likely to be used as a source for Wikipedia". If that is not your opinion, I apologise. Deltahedron (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I agree with User:Deltahedron in the related WP:NJOURNALS discussion when they open with a statement [65] that "Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH ...cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively". ~~Therefore, he himself has shown~~ To me means that the number of journals covered is limited to 1900 and 2300 respectively.

Furthermore, the link and quote below means to me (and only me) that Zentralblatt MATH covers a limited number of journals:

"Zentralblatt MATH (zbMATH) is the world’s most comprehensive and longest running abstracting and reviewing service in pure and applied mathematics" ...[and so on] ... [and] reviews or abstracts [are] currently drawn from more than 3,000 journals and serials" [66].

I am also adding the following:

The way the MR covers papers appears to be comprehensive to each paper ~~I agree with User:Deltahedron if he also stated that there is comprehensive coverage of each paper covered~~, and I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems similar to abstracting to me, which could be useful for indexing. Either way, this is a limited number of journals (1900, 2300, etc.), and a select number of journals. I think what is meant is that MR comprehensively covers the entire field of pure and applied mathematics, within a selected number of journals - which by the way - are important to mathematics.

For myslef, I saw the number 3500 somewhere, I'll try to find it - but the point is - these are a limited or select number of journals at either around 2100 or some other number.

Furthermore, the below evidence appears to show relevant selectivity [67]:

"[Since 1940] Mathematical Reviews...provid[es] timely information on articles, books and other published material that contain new contributions to mathematical research ... It is MR policy to cover articles and books in other disciplines that contain new mathematical results or give novel and interesting applications of known mathematics. Elementary articles or books, or articles that have not been refereed are ordinarily not listed [Also,] articles and books that are not in the published literature are not considered for coverage... ~~MRDB entries for recent items in a selected list of journals~~..." [68]

Addtionally, the reviews in MR are "reviews written by a community of experts" [69] - this means the reviews are not written by history experts or literary authors - people who might not have expertise in mathematics.

Also, MR builds on previous literature with novel advancements[70] , but also if it lacks integrity according to MR standards then "If a journal currently indexed by Mathematical Reviews® does not adopt these best practice standards, coverage of that journal will cease and the editors of the journal will be informed. Coverage will be resumed only when the journal agrees to these basic standards of scholarship". [71].

Consequently, I am seeing more and more selectivity with MR, as I study this problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I have ever stated that MR or ZM has a numerical limit on the number of journals: I have never said that, I have in fact repeatedly stated the opposite, and there is no such numerical limit. SQ has been repatedly challenged to produce evidence, and so far the best he can do is to falsely attribute the statement to me. SQ either cannot understand plain English, or is deliberately mis-quoting me, or simply trolling. Deltahedron (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect what does the following statement mean:

"The premiere reviewing and indexing sources for mathematics are Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. These cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively, constituting a more-or-less comprehensive coverage of the peer-reviews literature." Here is the diff [72], and this is the text that is currently at the top of the section [73].

Apparently I am unable to discern what this means. I agree that the statement does not in any way literally say that MR or ZM "limits" or "selects" journals to the number of 1900 and 2300 respectively. What was written is "These cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively...". So, sincerely, what does this mean? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the number of journals that exist in the world is not infinite. So in that sense, there is an absolute limit on the number of journals. That is, there is an integer N such that Zentralblatt cannot index more than N journals. In fact, with

N=10^{10^{10}}

, it is extremely unlikely that Zentralblatt will index N journals, just by virtue of the fact that there aren't enough electrons in the universe to set up the indexing. But this is, of course, not what Deltahedron and others contend. What they contend is that there is not some fixed number that is small (relative to the total number of mathematics journals) that Zentralblatt and MathSciNet limit themselves to. This does appear to be your contention, but you have not yet provided any clear evidence that there is such a fixed (small) number. In fact, you yourself have acknowledged that these services keep adding journals to their indexing services, which would seem to contradict the view that they are working with an absolute (small) maximum number. Moreover, this viewpoint is explicitly contradicted by quotations Deltahedron provided from both the MathSciNet and Zentralblatt websites. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Here is a reference [74] that says coverage in MathSciNet is 1,799 journals. This is close to the number '1900' stated above. It is in fact the Mathematical Reviews article on Wikipedia that says '1900'.

In any case, this reference and the above reference indicate that there is a numerical limit on both MR and ZM. And from this I see" selectivity " for the above stated reasons; and because the number of journals covered in either case is very small and the quality of peer review very high, and the editorial staff and publishers for both are reputable and known for integrity WP:IAR. The publisher for MR is the American Mathematical Society [75].

Moreover, we see that Zentralblatt MATH is edited by the European Mathematical Society, FIZ Karlsruhe and the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and then published by Springer-Verlag [76] --- WP:Use common sense--- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Steve Quinn has made a number of assertions here, some of them on several occasions, which I think are simply incorrect. There is certainly no evidence for them. I don't propose to extend the length of this discussion by refuting them every time he makes them. I simply ask the closer to bear in mind that these claims are at best unsubstantiated. Deltahedron (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I did a pretty good job of supporting my argument. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the risk of making this discussion even longer than it already is, I would like to add a few remarks on Zentralblatt MATH (ZM) and Mathematical Reviews (MR). It seems to me that in the above discussion, some concepts are being mixed up and misinterpreted, namely "comprehensive" and "selective". Comprehensive means that a database tries to cover every aspect of its scope. Selective means that a database only includes certain sources that have passed some kind of review. These are two very different, and more importantly, independent things. For example, Google Scholar (GS) tries to cover all academic subjects from astronomy to humanities (so it is comprehensive in scope) and it tries to include everything ever published (so it is not selective in coverage). The Web of Science (WoS) also covers astronomy to humanities (so it is also comprehensive in scope), but is very selective about the journals that it includes and it does not include other publishing formats (so it is selective in coverage). Scopus is similar to WoS, but a bit less selective. ZM and MR are both much less comprehensive than either GS or WoS, because they only cover mathematics. However, within mathematics they are both comprehensive in scope and try to cover the whole field. If we now look at the link that Steve gave above for ZM and click on About Zentralblatt, we see this confirmed under "Subject coverage". Hence, for mathematics, it is comprehensive in scope. If we now look under "Publications coverage", we read: "Zentralblatt MATH covers all published and refereed articles, books, conferences as well as other publication formats (CD-ROM, DVD, Video-tapes, web-documents) belonging to the scope given above. Moreover, ZBMATH also partially covers theses (when received at the editorial office)." From this, it appears evident that they cover anything that they can lay their hands on. Hence, although being comprehensive in scope, they are not selective in coverage. To get back to the question of notability, it is clear that whether the scope of a database is comprehensive or not, is not relevant. What does matter, is whether its coverage is selective or not. If it is, then inclusion in such a database is a seal of approval by recognized experts, which contributes to notability. If it is not, then inclusion in such a database does not contribute to notability. From all the discussion above, it would seem to me that inclusion in ZM and MR means that this is nothing less than a peer-reviewed journal. But nothing more, either, because these databases are not selective in their coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zentralblatt MATH is a database which covers the entire field of mathematics, and does so with a limited number of journals. Specifically, according to the above reference, it covers 3,000 journals. However according this reference [77] it covers 3500 journals (which is also above). This limited number indicates selective coverage because Zentralblatt MATH covers journals from other disciplines besides mathematics. For example, punch in the search term "physics" on this page: [78]. This produces about 120 physics or physics related journals. If "chemistry' is the search term then there's 17 chemistry journals (hmmm - a very small number); if "economics' is used as the search term then there is only 35 journals (h-m-m-m another small number); if "computing" then its 81; finally if "mathematics" is selected it is 616. Hence, these are selected journals, from various disciplines; these are not all just mathematics journals. And some of these can be found on Thomson Reuters Master Journal List, which may be irrelevant. In fact this page [79] ZM covers "all areas of pure and applied mathematics, as well as its applications, in particular to the natural sciences, computer science, economics and engineering. It also covers history and philosophy of mathematics and university education". Coverage within all the disciplines and area for only 3500 journals is a small, limited and select quantity. Therefore, this is very very different from only grabbing anything that they can lay their hands on. Instead it appears to be the silver on top of the dross, or the whipped cream on top of the pudding.

Also, the fact that this database might cover books, conference proceedings and other publication formats is not remarkable. The Web of Science covers books, journals, proceedings and patents, [80], [81]. Also, "Web of Science is the largest discovery platform with the most complete records in every subject" [82]. Also, it appear that Chemical Abstracts Service covers journals, technical reports, dissertations, conference proceedings, and new books, according to the Wikipedia article - I found a related reference here: [83].

I have already made the case for Mathematical Reviews throughout this discussion and I see no need to repeat that again.

I will however repeat - both databases comprehensively cover pure and applied mathematics, but each database does so with a limited number of journals, from a variety of disciplines. Each database is produced by reputable publishers and editorial staff, with high quality peer review. This shows that care, quality, control, discrimination and so on are part of the formula. This is in contradiction to saying they grab anything they can lay their hands on - which really seems like a an inaccurate description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, with all due respect, but 3000 is a huge number for the sole field of mathematics. Where do you get that this is just a "limited number"? Their own description seems to be quite clear that they include anything they can get and are not selective at all. That you get small numbers for fields other than mathematics is to be expected, there are not that many journals outside of mathematics that publish articles that are of interest to mathematicians. Also, nobody has ever claimed here that these two databases are anything else than high quality, so your argument about that is a straw man. WoS, for all fields of science (including such prolific fields as the life sciences), contains 12,000 journals, that's only 4 times as much then the 3000 journals that you are calling selective. Above, clear sources have been given for the fact that ZM and MR are not selective. Do you have any source for your claim that 3000 is a selective subset of all existing mathematics journals? Do you have any source where ZM and/or MR describe on what basis (other than being peer-reviewed) they select journals? --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your argument using the "search" feature of Zentralblatt is totally wrong. What you have shown is that there are 616 journals in which the word "mathematics" appears in the title (or subtitle), not that there are only 616 mathematics journals. For example, none of the following high profile mathematics journals appear in your search results: Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of Algebra, Journal of Differential Geometry, Journal of Functional Analysis, etc, and these were just the first ones I looked for! Also, I see no evidence anywhere that ZB limits the number of journals to 3500. They do certainly cover some number of journals, but they do not say that they have imposed this as a limit on the number of journals that they cover. It seems quite plausible to me that 3500 is actually close to the total number of existing mathematics journals. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? A relist? Seriously? Just close this as no consensus and let's move on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus"? When the only "keep" arguments are based on the incorrect assumption that ZM and MR are selective? --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a relist seems unnecessary. The discussion above is primarily semantic; it has essentially nothing to do with the article in question. I think consensus was for either deletion or a redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers. Ozob (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. AFD is not the correct venue for POV or cleanup issues with an article. Ryan Norton 19:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment in video gaming[edit]

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

Heavily one sided, Voting for the article to be recreated as currently it seems to me to be unsalvageable. Article presents one sided view that sexism is rife in the industry and has no counter argument. Article also reads like a personal essay. Retartist (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of the topic, which is amply attested in the cited reliable sources, is not contested. Deletion is not cleanup, and the nominator has not edited the article and has not made any proposal for how the article could be made, in their view, more neutral. No policy-based grounds for deletion exist. Sandstein 07:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability not in question. Want to re-write the article? I won't stand in your way. Best way to do that would be to propose such an effort on the article talk page and start working collaboratively with other editors there. Not really a WP:TNT situation, this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the topic is thoroughly well documented in reliable sources. Retartist, Articles for deletion is the wrong venue to solve problems with the way articles are written; deleting an article is related to the relevance of the topic at independent venues, not the way Wikipedia editors have covered it (you'll hear old-timers saying "deletion is not clean-up"). Problems with the neutrality of presentation are dealt by improving the article with other points of view. If you have references that support a different narrative, please show them at the article's talk page so that they can be discussed. Diego (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since when do we clean up articles by deleting them? Kaldari (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets GNG just from the sources given in the article. Many more RSes exist on the clearly notable topic. -Thibbs (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not the venue to solve POV problems with articles.Axon (talk|contribs) 11:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to gender representation in video games. It might seem like a long shot with all these keep votes, but there are sections in that article that relate mostly to this. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are distinct topics - how women gamers are treated by other gamers has nothing to do with how women are represented as characters in games, even though both relate to general societal phenomena such as sexism. Sandstein 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move - Telling a woman to get in the kitchen is not "sexual harassment", it's sexist, and it could be harassment. The article does cover some instances of sexual harassment, but this is clearly not the main subject of the article. This should be moved to Harassment in video gaming or Online harassment in video gaming depending on its scope (Sexism in video gaming is another possibility, but that already redirects to Gender representation in video games). Would it not be confusing to do so in the middle of an AFD, I would have boldly moved it myself. - hahnch e n 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good calls, though they would better be addressed at the talk page with a move request. Diego (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Not only from most reasons above, but based on nom's contributions, this appears a POINTy nom (user has been critical of gamergate-related coverage). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Clearly adequate sourcing to keep. I tend to agree with Hahnchen and Diego that the naming is somewhat awkward and misleading. I also believe this is a pointy nomination as mentioned by Masem above. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean-up. This article is not nearly problematic enough to justify a nuke and pave. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:08, 8 September 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. No need for a full AfD here, this is a clear speedy delete A7. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timecop1983[edit]

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

This musical group fails to meet general notability guidelines. Upjav (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 September 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karanvir Bohra[edit]

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

The article was vandalized by ChanderForYou by just keeping 3 source in which 1 is invalid. The article fails WP:Notability (people). If the article is not sourced or kept updated its likely to be merged or deleted. Howzat Utseya (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • The subject have significant coverage in reliable source and meets WP:NACTOR . CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. On a side note, I think it unusual for a one-day editor's first actions to be deletion nominations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ludicrous nomination. Clearly meets WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't think anyone can argue that we keep this. G5 and G4 apply, Anyone who finds sources is welcome to let me know and I'll unsalt. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadiaa Nyce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nadia Nyce

Articles for deletion/Nadiaa Nyce (2nd nomination)

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

I declined the speedy on this article simply because it has been six years since the previous AfD, but frankly, she still doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNBIO because after a thorough Gsearch, I could find no evidence that she was ever even nominated for anything. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The previous AfD may have been six years ago but this porn star is still not notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has tagged this for G4 speedy and I agree. Fails GNG with only passing RS mentions. No real claim for passing PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest this pornstar is anyway notable. Finnegas (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And salt the name(s). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be salted? I don't think it's been created several times. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nadia Nyce was deleted 5 times before it was permanently salted. Nadiaa Nyce is an obvious attempt to go around protection. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Didn't realize that. Well, since it's been so long and a lot of people might not have seen the original article, I still don't quite agree with a speedy, but I would endorse spreading some salt around. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Deleted five times previously, then salted, and even the userfied versions were deleted at MFD. The subject hasn't been active in the porn industry or otherwise in the public eye since 1997, so the reasons for the prior deletions clearly stand. Deliberately created under a misspelled version of the subject's name to evade the still-in-effect salting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And, it turns out, created by a banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. I think we're done here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:35, 9 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Wrestling Federation/Fans[edit]

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:28, 3 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 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability concerns haven't improved since it was tagged in 2012.LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

~~Advert for~~ non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The copy-and-paste mass nomination doesn't work here, since this article is not advertising. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, maybe I mess up with the Advertising. However, I think the promotion stills no notable, like New York Wrestling Connection. The only source (xcept the own website) is cagematch with results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:21, 3 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 04:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CORP.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 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) 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WFX Wrestling[edit]

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

Unsourced (no reliable sources in the article), no notable. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. The one reliable source in the article has one brief mention of a "wrestling company" and doesn't even mention it by name. Nikki♥311 21:40, 1 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 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Like Nikki, the sources I found weren't enough to cover WP:CORP.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stebbings[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There are some indications, but not enough. It has been tagged for notability for over six years; time for it to be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some evidence of notability, as his works seem to be frequently mentioned in books about the source material and some of the newspapers that show up in Google Books. I'll try to find more, though. ([84], [85], [86], [87], [88]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:26, 31 August 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 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. References to his work pop up in sources from a variety of countries (see e.g., [89][90][91][92]), which helps to explain his 2013 MBE for "services to promoting British theatre and furthering British cultural interests in Asia, particularly in China." [93] (Our precedents are clear that an MBE, by itself, does not confer notability but it can be taken as relevant evidence together with other indicia. Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2009#Does an MBE confer notability?) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Grigoriyev[edit]

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

I think this falls into the "random businessman" category: sure, his views have been quoted in a couple of trade papers, but there really hasn't been any coverage of him as such, and I'm not at all sure there's any persuasive claim to notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 11:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:19, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:52, 31 August 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 04:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Johnson[edit]

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

Johnson does not appear to be notable independent of 'Money Talks'. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:02, 31 August 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 04:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He also wrote what appears to be a non-notable personal finance book, that is mentioned on the publishers site and almost nowhere else. Aside from the drug charges, and the immunity from prosecution episode regarding fraud, not much in the article. The MoneyTalks article has notability tag as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Money Talks News, unless further evidence of notability outside of that program can be demonstrated. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Velasquez[edit]

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

No references, minimal claim to notability (created a dance for one video and choreographed one video?), would welcome any articles about her, but could not find any. GRuban (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, standard searches turn up nill. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unable to find anything reliable about her. There's an article at http://cdn.worldheritage.org/articles/Daisy_Velasquez which is almost identical, but it says Copyright 2013, and the Wikipedia article has been developing without substantial sources since 2008. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:04, 10 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaka Singgih[edit]

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

Okay so this has had some tags for a while, with no sources either and little info. I looked at the history and there apparently use to be refs but none of them look quite notable. Wgolf (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just went even further back and it says he is a politician of some sort? Not sure what is going on, considering that this has been empty for a while I'm wondering how accurate that was and if it was for someone with another name or what....Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Member of Parliament passing WP:POLITICIAN.[94] That fact was removed from the article but it is verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 8 September 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. Participants have for the most part provided guideline- and policy-based rationales supporting their stances. Ultimately, there is no consensus herein for the article to be retained or deleted. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters[edit]

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

WP:No original research and WP:POVFORK. This is a synthesized article of all such incidents that has not been discussed holistically in the media and created to lead the readers to a certain conclusion. As User:Kingsindian wrote on the talk page when discussing a new title, "Any title that does not mention Israel doing the 'hitting' is probably a non-starter." That is despite the fact that much of the findings of responsibility are unclear and in a number of these incidents, Israel has countered that the shelling was from misfired munitions of Gaza militant groups. The fact that the original title of this article was "2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools" clearly says something of the intentions of a number of the editors here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, what? The original title "2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools" was overwhelmingly voted to be kept (I did not vote there). I got involved quite late in this article and was one of the people who was involved in changing the title to be less POV, since some other editors raised concern about "raid". A new title was unanimously approved. I don't think this is a POV fork: the allegations are discussed here. This is a WP:SPLIT from the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict article. See section. There is no original research, no synth. All the incidents are collected here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some recent reports. UN report

This is the report that Monopoly31121993 below is talking about. I find it bizarre that this is used to support a "delete" vote. As far as I can see, Stalwart111 made arguments about POV fork, NPOV title, saying that they are not "Israeli shelling", notability, finally the notability of it as a group. From what I can see, the first, second, third, fourth argument are totally without merit. The fifth argument now reduces to "only 3 are notable, not the whole 7". I ask any fair-minded person to consider whether this argument is sufficient for deletion. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your opinion that those arguments are "without merit" but saying so doesn't make it so. You've not actually provided an argument against those points beyond, "I disagree". As the author, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide evidence for your claims and, in this instance, your presentation of those claims. You've still been unable to provide evidence for the collective notability of these events or an explanation for why we should accept the inclusion of material that fails inclusion criteria just because you have elected to combine that material with other more-notable material. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my comments just below your comment, when I made the claim of "without merit". I can only give my opinion, that I addressed all the arguments made. People can read it for themselves. Kingsindian (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Please read Wikipedia:Notability (events): Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance. Now. do ypu remember prior attack on UN school in Beit Lahiya during Gaza_War_(2008–09)? Are you sure this is last attack on UN schools in Gaza? If you answer these questions, you know this article is notable for past and future.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of that comment makes any sense at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as written, this is obviously a POV fork and suggesting otherwise is ignorant. Are we seriously suggesting this is the most NPOV title we could come up with? For a start, the incidents aren't all incidents of "shelling". It's spelled out in the first few lines. "Shelling" is artillery (which uses... you know... artillery shells) while the article quite clearly states that some were mortars. There's conjecture as to who fired/launched the shells/mortars in question or whether they were shells/mortars at or were perhaps Hamas rockets. Somehow we've still allowed the title "Israeli shelling of..." despite two of those things not being supported by the very text of the article. That's like an article about 3 people having heart attacks last week being titled Strange bovine strangulations of 1912. I'm still not convinced this "event" (strung together in a manner that suggests WP:SYNTH anyway) is notable in the first place as a stand-alone thing. What makes this particular set of events (what makes it a "set" first) notable in its own right, separate from the many, many, many other sub-sets of events in this conflict? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title was twice almost unanimously approved. If you want to change it, make a move request. This is not WP:SYNTH, I gave a single reference describing all incidents. Regarding responsibility, they are clear for all except one where it was initially disputed, and the dispute is presented in the article. As to notability, it was commented on by the UN secretary general and the US state department (among many many others). I have no idea what the POV claim is about. There is a long verbatim quote by the IDF spokesman in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, specific changes were "unanimously approved" by a vast and broad-ranging consensus of 5 editors, all of whom had previously had involvement with the article and were canvassed by the proposer... which is what allowed that move request to be acted on within 24 Hours of it being proposed... and it was "closed" by the proposer. The first 2 responses to the suggestion came within 15 minutes. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on "consensus" like that, especially in support of an argument that this title isn't hopelessly POV and completely inaccurate. Even if we kept this (I don't think we should), it's a terrible title. Yes, you gave a single reference. A single reference. Where's the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources all talking about these things as one thing. A single article does not a Wikipedia subject make. Bringing these events together and claiming these are all one subject on the basis of one news item (which this article heavily paraphrases anyway) is still WP:SYNTH in my books. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you wish to contest the title, the proper procedure is to make a move request, not an AfD. The first move request was totally legitimate. The person who moved the article a 2nd time was an inexperienced user who took some shortcuts. Nobody at all protested. The OP (Plot Spoiler) was pinged.
Though I feel that the SYNTH issue is a total red herring, I gave a one sentence response which defeats it. A single reference is sufficient to address WP:SYNTH. When you say, where are the other references dealing with all incidents, what you are asking about is notability, not SYNTH. There are plenty of references to attacks on UN shelters; many of them are cited, and countless others can be added. There is no requirement to discuss all 7 incidents in every source cited. Plenty of sources one example, simply refer to one of a series of incidents in which UN schools were hit, while saying that this was the 7th time it happenned. Kingsindian (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the title issue is a red herring given I don't think the article should be kept. That's unfair. So let's leave that aside. "Synthesis" applies to article content and to the premise of the article itself. I can't just pick 5-10 non-notable, partially-related events and "create" a subject (or the premise of a subject) because one news article discussed those disparate events in a broad analysis of similar events. A one line mention elsewhere suggesting there had been a certain number (without giving the idea significant coverage) doesn't help much. My point is that this isn't a recognised premise or subject of which there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Individually, the events wouldn't be notable. They don't suddenly become notable because one article happened to cover them all at the same time (each in passing). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are talking about synth but arguing about notability. Not sure what you mean exactly. There is nothing in WP:SYNTH I see that applies to an article as a whole. I will ignore the SYNTH claim altogether and talk about notability. At least two events, the attack on Jabaliya school and the Rafah school, were notable. The Jabaliya school attack was condemned all over the place, and it was significant because a similar incident in Jabaliya happened during the 2008 war - this was specifically mentioned in the NYT investigation. The Rafah school incident was singled out by the UN Secretary General and the US state department, the latter especially for anyone who knows about the topic, was very measured about the criticism before the incident. Israel withdrew from Gaza shortly afterwards. Who knows if that was a coincidence or not. To be frank, I find it a bit distasteful to even argue about notability. I will make no further comments. I have said enough, and people are free to make up their minds as they choose. Kingsindian (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps those are the notable events about which we should have articles. There would be nothing wrong with mentioning the others in order to give those context. But creating a subject in order to fit them all in is a problem. These are not a defined set of events about which there has been significant coverage. The non-notable examples don't gain notability from the notable ones such that collectively they are notable. Create articles about the individual examples for which there is WP:GNG coverage. You'll get no argument from me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH also POV title don't add much to article.--Shrike (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the explanation of a certain person here can be posted here verbatim and it would apply perfectly. The only issue is that the !vote is different for some strange reason. Kingsindian (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was about a single event he believed met WP:EVENT (although I happen to disagree). This is about a disparate series of events that have been WP:SYNTHED together to make a non-NPOV whole under an equally non-NPOV title. They are considerably different. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to the arguments on the other page: based on WP:DIVERSE and that the original article which is too big for the article to be incorporated, hence the need for a split. Those comments apply here verbatim. Of course, the !vote here is different, based on totally different criteria. This is why I was asking why the different criteria are being applied in different cases. There is no implication of any personal attack here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I don't see any diverse sources for example for "Maghazi Preparatory Girls School A & B" also I don't see diverse sources that discuss such events at large--Shrike (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the argument that this doesn't meet the WP:GNG and needs to be divided. I've long thought that the content on this page didn't respect the NPOV guidelines and Kingsindian (who's account became very active since the start of the war in Gaza and has seemingly focused solely on Israel-Gaza issues) has had more than a few disagreements with me over article content and what is NPOV. I do think that the general trend of this article is to attempt to portray Israel in a negative light regardless of whether they deserve to be or not (evidence the posting of an image of Israeli bombs falling on Gaza from 2009, the original naming of the page, the original content and the generally passionate and not moderate/calm/consensus seeking discussions on the talk page).I support moving these into separate articles.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Israeli strikes against UN schools was very much covered, leading to many news reports and condemnations, including from United States and United Nation's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK An article on a topic like: UNRWA facilities and the 4014 Israel-Gaza conflict that covered issues like Hamas attack tunnels with entrances underneath UNRWA facilities, the launching of rockets from within and adjacent to UNRWA facilities, and the refusal of the UNRWA to evacuate shelters in neighborhoods where heavy fighting was taking place, in addition to the material that it now covers might have the potential to become an acceptable article. As it stands, this article is mere wartime propaganda.ShulMaven (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have little experience in these things, but is it ok to open a move request right in the middle of an AfD discussion? As to the rest, I find it strange to demand inclusion of things which are already present. The lead has a long quote from an IDF spokesman verbatim, together with rockets being found in UNRWA schools. There is a sentence by UNHRC accusing Hamas (and Israel) of possible war crimes. Half the background consists of the "human shields"/launching rockets close to civilian facilities. There is a separate subsection talking about other UNRWA incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, while this is a POV Fork, the subject has received significant coverage, but within the scope of my proposed redirect target. Whether this article is recreated will largely depend on the improvement and growth of the redirect target and once a consensus is formed as to what sub-articles are created if the redirect target meets WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the comment: is there some doubt that the main article meets WP:TOOBIG? I can't see the "readable prose size", but the article size is already about 180K. And it's getting even bigger all the time. Already several sections have been hived off, and more will follow. As to POVFORK, I would like to see the argument. Kingsindian (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - broadly. In contrast to most of the newsy rubbish that the community insists on keeping when it's Israelis who were hurt, the Rafah shelling is actually still being talked about over a month later. ([95] - today) Delete votes that claim it's a POVFORK as long as it doesn't talk about violence against Israelis are nonsense and I hope the closing admin will give them the consideration they deserve. It's possible that other attacks on schools and shelters are not encyclopedically notable and that, based on coverage, the right decision will be to turn this into an article on the Rafah shelling and maybe mention other attacks on schools in a section - but that's a decision that needs to be made from the baseline of keeping the article on something that, going by the usual community standards in this topic area, is reeeeeally notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the Jabaliya incident is also notable, especially as it was a repeat of another incident in Jabaliya in the 2009 war, a fact noted here. The above report is talking about Israel's own investigation into one school incident. The UN is mulling an investigation into all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restart this is the sort of POV pushing that weakens WP's credabilty generally. The "Background" section is all about the 2009 conflict, when many of us thought that the 2014 conflict had something to do with some murdered teenagers, not mentioned of course... The topic may be notable, just as the finding of arms caches in UN sites is notable for those with the pro-Israeli POV, but what is written in this article is clearly the result of such persistent POV pushing that it needs to be redone in its entirety. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above comment gets the credit it deserves (nil). The murdered teenagers are mentioned (prominently, in the lead) for the main article. In this article, the finding of rockets in UN sites is mentioned in the lead and background (it even has its own section right now). Exactly one paragraph and one picture in the background section deal with 2009 conflict, because it is relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One finds through experience that someone who has to berate all who disagree with them in these sorts of debates is WP:NOTHERE but is WP:RGW and his or her input ought to be ignored. I see your antics in these sorts of debates has already been flagged by other editors including a warning and advice. You'd be better served heeding them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning is perhaps well-intentioned, but this is not the venue to discuss user conduct. I "berated" the comment, not the user, giving arguments. And of course my responses are to comments who disagree with me: how could it be otherwise? For what it's worth, I also disagreed with Roscelese above, who said "keep". Kingsindian (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a notable standalone topic, not to mention the hundreds of news articles about this. Now all one has to do is pray that Hamas goes away from UN shelters (but seriously, 69 sources is enough). Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that so far, the proponents of this article have only been able to point to 1 source that is actually about this topic. The rest (68?) are about individual events that have been synthed together to make an original research whole. That number of sources suggests at least 1 or 2 of those individual events might be notable, probably more. But then they should be treated as different events. The POV problems stem from the synthesis - the desire to group these disparate events together and suggest they are part of a trend because of common elements. The POV, title problems, original research and weight issues could all be solved by deleting this and splitting the article into disparate parts (properly accounting for disparate events). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: So each shelling is a notable topic by itself, but not as a whole? If that's so, I somewhat agree that it should be split into separate articles or merged where necessary.

Still, the fact that there even are shellings of UN schools is itself backed up by 69 sources, which point to instances of such attacks. Maybe non-notable separate instances can be described within one or two sentences, or a bullet point, in a new article, Casualties of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (I'm not familiar with this topic's Wikipedia coverage, so it may already exist). This article should be kept, anyway, as an umbrella page, since most of these instances may not get articles. Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying, though may be not all of them are necessarily notable (it's less likely that those without fatalities, for example, have received as much coverage). This is effectively a "list article" where the inclusion criteria is too broad, some of the included items aren't notable and the title it terrible. Splitting them into individual, unquestionably notable event articles would be a much better outcome for WP, I think. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Epicgenius - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per Stalwart111 - bias issues aside this is a list article at the moment which needs a source discussing the list as whole for it to meet the notability requirement. I think the Human Rights Watch report yesterday discusses the topic but its contents have yet to be placed into the article here in a NPOV way. Also the report only mentions 3 of the 7 shellings listed here so that also points to either a major revision being needed (to focus only on those three events and then retitle the page) or the creation of separate pages.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others 3bdulelah (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@3bdulelah: You need to give reasons. AfD is not a vote. Kingsindian (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One hears that anyone can log on and write anything they like on Wikipedia, that anyone with a horn to blow can use it for puffery or propaganda, that nothing you (or your students) find on Wikipedia can be trusted. But one (or at least ) have rarely come across an article this embarrassing - or this damaging - to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.138 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pr -User:IRISZOOM and User:Kingsindian, --Huldra (talk) 23:41, 13 September 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.