Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

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 delete, borderline WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Russell (professor)[edit]

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

Non notable professor and politician-was unsuccessful in a congressman race. Wgolf (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete running in a local election [1] just isn't enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:PROF yet. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither WP:PROF nor WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this time —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot at the moment. Johnstontouch has moved the article to Draft space, and I'll delete the redirect from mainspace per CSD R2. If/when the article is restored to mainspace, anyone is welcome to renominate it (or tag it for speedy deletion if appropriate). Deor (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Boy: Tales of a Teenage Zombie (Animated Series)[edit]

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

No indication of significance or notability. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you actually let me edit this article, I can show it's significance and notability. I just started editing this article. johnstontouch (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email a copy to Johnstontouch and delete the original. Neither Kickstarter.com nor Buzzfeed are reliable sources. If Wikipedia article author Johnstontouch could cite the online version of a widely-circulated print newspaper or magazine, that would be ideal. However, I suspect that such sources probably don't cover this web series. Therefore, I believe this article should be moved from Wikipedia to another location. Once we establish a consensus the article is unwanted here, we should email a copy to Johnstontouch and delete it from Wikipedia. Johnstontouch can then repost the article on a wiki which is about web series or about animated series, or can repost it on Everything2, Wikinfo, h2g2, or the Annex. Also, dear Johnstontouch:
1. Since you are a new Wikipedian, you can learn a lot from other Wikipedians about Wikipedia's rules and norms. It is unwise to ignore their words, and it is unwise to revert their changes without explanation — and you seem to have done each of these things at least once already. If you keep it up, you may end up wasting significant time on writing articles which just get deleted in the end. Also, you may develop a reputation as an editor who is stubborn and who does what he wants instead of what is good for Wikipedia. This will encourage other editors to be merciless when considering whether or not your work should be deleted. It will also discourage other editors from helping you.
2. There's still some hope for you, but you've been proving yourself mostly unworthy so far. I have turned upon other users before. I believe that I played a part in getting COI SPA User:Wiki12rt to leave Wikipedia in frustration[2], and in getting paid advocate User:LukeGilkerson to leave in frustration also[3]. Again, I do encourage you try to become more flexible and to respectfully consider what the community would like instead of just what you want.
3. It can take some time to develop a good sense of notability judgment. You might even want to check your judgments with our live help chat volunteers until they improve sufficiently.
4. I pointed you to WP:42 two months ago.[4] Have you read it yet?

Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks!!! ;) I have a request, can you help me turn the page into a draft? I am still editing it. As a human being who works 2nd shift for a job, I want to be able to contribute when I can. Nobody's perfect, and I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia. Let's work together. I am also aware that those two sources are not credible. I believe more sources will arrive when the project pushes its way into mainstream animation. —johnstontouch (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was able to move the page to drafts, I want to work on it more and provide more sources. Just an FYI, and thanks. I have to improve on the standards. —johnstontouch (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippines international footballers born outside the Philippines[edit]

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

It is not notable because it is trivial and no references. AndaleCaballo (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too random; see WP:LIST. Why does this matter? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, entire article is subject to WP:BURDEN. Why can't this be an embedded list in Philippines national football team?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Given that football only really became big here a few years ago, and thus there aren't that many locally-bred players yet, this list would become too big to handle. A selective merge to Philippines national football team is a possibility, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda's Sweet Shoppe[edit]

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

Non-notable Illinois bakery, minimal WP:CORPDEPTH, tagged for notability for almost 7 years so it's probably well past time to discuss this. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Cheap promo article. Educationtemple (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Some coverage exists, such as [5], [6], but not finding significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suggest the best thing for this content would be to list the shoppe in WikiVoyage, it sounds like a cool place. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all of the relevant notability guidelines. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Visual Effects Companies In India[edit]

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

The page contains four VFX studios "based" in India. Famous Studios is based in Miami, FL; Trace VFX is based in New York City, NY. The only two companies that are actually based in India are Red Chillies Entertainment and Prime Focus Limited. It is unnecessary to create a "List of..." article that only includes two items. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is hard to believe that there are just two visual effects companies in India. It seems much more likely that the list is just incomplete and needs expansion. We should ask, what kind of criteria should this list article have? Common selection criteria is outlined at WP:CSC. A brief search turned up this, which mentions Crest Studios. There are probably more out there that research can turn up. Rayukk, what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, there are definitely more than two vfx companies in India, but I hardly believe this article qualifies as encyclopedic content. Most countries probably have more than two VFX companies, but there are no articles for that either. I think it would be sufficient to create a subcategory (e.g. "Visual effects company based in India") under companies, vfx, India,... and be done with it. Rayukk (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it has not been done before, we could be onto something new. :) As for replacing the list with a category, WP:CLT says that categories and lists should not be considered in conflict with each other. Sometimes we can have both, sometimes we have one or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, why is it not encyclopedic? WP:NOTESAL covers the notability of stand-alone lists says that there can be a case for "more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria [that] may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". For example, we see list of companies having different lists of companies. A list of visual effects companies can exist, it is just that no one has done it yet. It seems appropriate to group these companies further by territory, which we often do in film-related categories. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty obvious this article was created by someone who is probably proud of his country for being home to VFX companies. Of course that's not a bad thing, but I think it's unnecessary for the sole reason that it's unencyclopedic. Here you can find the version of the article when it was first created. After the two companies that are not based in India are removed, the article will consists of merely two notable companies. I hope you agree with me that there is no need in an article that lists two items. --Rayukk (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting going beyond the original intent. For example, if someone created an article to promote a minor celebrity, and we editors found that the celebrity was notable, we would keep the article and clean it up to lack a promotional tone. For this list, we could add other companies we find so it would be somewhat fuller list and perhaps inspire other editors to start similar VFX-related lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but like you said, if "we editors found that the celebrity was notable"... I (and I think BeenAroundAWhile too) definitely do not find it notable though. :) Rayukk (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a directory: the article is too specialized and it itself is an orphan. Otherwise Singapore can have its own article too. Secondly and more importantly, this list lacks reliable sources. Finally, categories are a perfect substitute and a more appropriate method in contrast to this list. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Deleted G11 by Jimfbleak j⚛e decker ^talk 15:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer wood[edit]

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

Promotional WP:AUTOBIO, much of bio is unsourced ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A highly promotional self-serving autobiography. I've tagged it for a speedy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seguku Women's Association[edit]

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

A worthy organisation, but I couldn't establish how they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. No mention of this group in google whatsoever. Not notable. Promo article of a for profit. Educationtemple (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May well be a worthy organization but there are no reliable sources that provide significant independent coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravest Crime[edit]

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

Article about an (unpublished?) essay. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The Italian wiki is a bit longer and might be able to help on that (I just put the expand language tag) Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the it.wiki article has the same issue with sourcing. The sources are the essay itself and another self-published document on the author's website.- Mr X 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know italian but this article also not sourced. Can someone nominate it for afd there? Seems to be extreme case of misuse of wiki! Educationtemple (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Anyone can write an essay. WP is not a noticeboard for notification about essays. Educationtemple (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Sorry for not having written enough to conform at Wikipedia's standards. The essay is not just a byproduct of the the author's thinking, it has been reviewed and adviced by several economists-consultants such as L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, John F. Henry, Bill Mitchell, Alain Parguez etc., perhaps it would be better to add this information into the article.--Marco Sciortino (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was not appropriate any way to create this article while a full biography article about the subject was already on WP. I can not suggest even for a merger now since the bio also has been nominated in afd. Educationtemple (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Sorry, but I don't see the point. The aim of the article is to further deepen the knowledge about the essay, what does the author's biography matter? --Marco Sciortino (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let some other editor explain this point and comment. Educationtemple (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only references provided are to a copy of the ebook and to the author's website. While the article claims "The book is well-known", no references are provided to back up that claim and I can find none myself. The notability criteria requires "significant coverage" by sources "independent of the subject". Therefore, delete unless such coverage can be provided. maclean (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TinyCog[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software. No independent references provided. --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, Search came up empty for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. WP:PROMO Educationtemple (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT, lack of coverage in reliable sources. If a target for merging or redirecting can be found, then merge or redirect instead. Esquivalience ^t 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero references. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's basically nothing out there on this. It seems too soon for an article as of yet. The few hits that do come up in a Google search are basically typos in novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firnas Airways[edit]

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

Alleged prospective airline with no coverage. The references link to their own SNS profiles and a poll they set up. Speedy was declined. Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN recommend listing this information in a directory per WP:ALTERNATIVE. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Cheap Promo. Educationtemple (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google, Guardian) turn up nothing on this firm. I'm not sure why this didn't go by CSD A7: Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin and FreeOnlineSurveys fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH by a long distance. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess airlines meet the WP:A7 bar - wherever that bar might be actually set - no matter what; A7 is not applicable if the reliability of the sources is what's under question. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O2Jam[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Notifying Woodroar, Marasmusine. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, I was unable to find any coverage any coverage beyond routine mentions of any game WP:ROUTINE, the only Scholarly article on the evolution of the Chinese gaming industry mentions in a list but nothing else. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend create an article for this content in Wikia.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references since 2007. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only meaningful hit (apart from press releases and listings) in a video game reliable sources custom Google search was this review. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (especially non-English and offline) sources are found. czar ⨹ 21:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetteh Plahar[edit]

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

Having recently found this article misplaced, I moved it to article space and then looked again, and recognised the subject. While I acknowledge that User:Rberchie has improved the article significantly from its original incarnation (which was deleted in an earlier AFD), I am afraid I still can't find sufficient evidence for notability and I am bringing back for discussion. I would like to see that this man is notable because African fashion design is under-represented on Wikipedia, (and I did try to find sources for the AFD last year too) but sources/evidence simply don't appear to be out there. So I'm sorry, but without sources, this should either be moved back to user space, or deleted again as its' basically an unsourced BLP - the only sources are directory listings or don't have a direct link to the context apart from the BuzzGhana link (and I had to go to page 12 to find a single name-check there...). Sorry, but it has to be a delete vote again. Mabalu (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN the article misses notability and should be deleted. The article has a feel of WP:PROMOTION. If the editors involved wanted they could make a article in WikiBios.com but the topic isn't notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-already deleted. Wgolf (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect The author has some notability retain history. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Quinn[edit]

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

Non-notable character from a YA series. No article currently exists for either the series (Father of Lies Chronicles) or the author, Alan Early. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I did put up the prod that was removed. The only link this goes to is a real person with this name (or rather the only article that has this name listed). So yes I do agree with this nom. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misses encyclapedic notabile for WPL:GNG and WP:NBOOK, I would recommend writing about this material on a literature wiki in Wikia or another location. but wikipedia isn't the best home for this topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-Per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alan Early. I did find just enough reviews to where this guy just barely scrapes by notability guidelines, but just by the skin of his teeth. Since he now has an article, this would be a valid enough redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Ali Mahdi[edit]

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

Notability missing. Sources cited are poor, facebook and google scholar pages. Did not find anything in google about his contributions, that could be added to improve the article. Recommended afd Educationtemple (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, a search turns up some texts written that could serve as primary sources, but no significant coverage from secondary sources. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing a bio on this content in WikiBios.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G7) by RHaworth. NAC –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Joo-hyun[edit]

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

Rather questionable notability here for this singer. Her alternate name that is mentioned is a redirect already to the band (as see by Irene Bae.) Wgolf (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page was blanked by the creator so it seems there's a strong consensus on its being deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well it could also just be a redirect to the band like her alternate name, but since it was deleted by the creator....Wgolf (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiti Hasan[edit]

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

Not a notable figure. Could not find any significant contribution to Indian Science and Technology that could justify inclusion on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, while Gaiti Hasan has written multiple papers, she hasn't had much in the way of papers written about her or her work. (that I could find from a search) per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing a biography about Ms Hasan in WikiBios but notability is missing for an encyclapedic entry. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Thanks for informing me of your nomination for the deletion of the Gaiti Hasan article. I find it rather disturbing that as Wikipedia and Wikimedians do their best to recognise that quality includes greater diversity in information (both gender and geography), this and other such articles about women scientists from India are being considered for deletion. As a datapoint you're likely familiar with Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, only 20-30% of WP articles currently come from the Global South (which comprises over 80% of the world's population) and our coverage of female-related content is poor (with only 1 in 10 of our contributors projected to be women).

In fact, this particular article was part of the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon held in Bangalore last year, held in order to improve writing about women scientists from India. The list of women scientists that needed enWP articles was created by a group of Indian scientists from a highly reputed Indian science research institution, and I would suggest that their understanding of notability is to be relied upon.

Sadly, notability is an issue I face repeatedly as I work on women of note from the Global South in multiple spheres - notability cannot only be established by the publishing of scholarship _about_ people, when there is a systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women; and of course, doubly so for a woman from the Global South. :-( Notability, of course, is also contextual; for example, not everyone in the world recognises Oreos to be notable when many of us may never have seen or eaten one in our lives! As a Wikipedian, I do, of course, understand that the way we have defined notability has its own constraints; however, in a space of scholarship that is clearly educational - i.e. about women scientists - I would suggest we be bold, rather than be limited in our view of inclusion. I invite the convenor of this edit-a-thon, Shyamal and other contributors like Netha to comment on this nomination for deletion as well. I also invite you both, Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, to be allies in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission: we cannot achieve the 'sum of human knowledge' if we do not recognise the institutional biases inherent in knowledge systems, and do our best not to make Wikipedia fallible to them. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally respect your views about women. But one has to prove notability (irrespective of gender) if the bio of living person has to be on WP. Let other learned editors comments and/or add more reliable sources/citations to the article to show some national contributions at least, if not international to pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize that society doles out notability in an arbitrary way. But it isn't the role of Wikipedia to correct these societal wrongs. certainly attractive actors have an easier time becoming notable then unattractive actors, but the myopic idea to lower standards for notability of different people based on geography, gender, etc. would create more problems than it would solve. Wikipedia has articles on notability it doesn't create notability by writing articles. I would recommend creating a Wiki on Wikia about "Women in science" or something along those lines. Where you can go indepth describing the contributions. Wikipedia is not Atlas carrying the world on its shoulders its simply an encyclopedia. Editing the content is not editing the world there's lots we can do to make the world a better place. But that doesn't change the lack of notability for this article I'm still in favor of deleting it from the encyclopedia.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the civil nature of this conversation (and thank you for your appreciation elsewhere, Bryce Carmony!), but I do think we need to think seriously about the rabbit hole that is notability for those who are already marginalised in terms of recognition, not actual notable work. And respectfully, I don't believe that Wikipedians can abdicate responsibility for not recognising systemic bias in publishing; that is at the core of our mission, not the periphery. :-) However, to be pragmatic and hopefully helpful to your dedicated work, Educationtemple, I have also added a section on awards received by Gaiti Hasan. I hope that will fit some of the notability criteria. Many thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, there are more material about her here, [7], some bio (she is part of the "Women in Science Initiative" from India) Dianakc (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the pdf link file suggested above is autobiography. Editors carefully decide whether to take it as reliable source. But agree that she is fellow of Indian Academy of Science Educationtemple (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Dianakc! Anasuyas (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.She is definitely notable in the Indian context. It is unfair to compare notability as applicable in the context of the Western academic world to someone in India's fledgeling scientific world. An Indian woman scientist with PhD from Cambridge, member of the Indian Academy of Sciences and working in the most prestigious cell biology & biochemistry institution in India? Notable imho. AshLin (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest all of you use either *'''Keep''' or *'''Delete''' as a standard format so that your vote is counted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dianakc and AshLin. You cannot apply the same rules that apply for an American page here. Systemic bias is rampant, but we need to figure a way to work around it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heads a lab, full professor at a major institution, lots of high impact papers, fellow of a national academy. Molecular biology today is not one for individual claims to glory but large scale teamwork and clearly she is a major node in the network. Also note that there is nothing specifically "Indian" to look for in molecular biology - so looking for "contribution to Indian Science and Technology" is a bit of a red herring. Shyamal (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AshLin. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:PROF #3, as a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think there are enough keeps. The afd may please be closed by an admin as appropriate as "Keep" at appropriate time. Having said so, I am firm on my reasonings (please read my last comment on other afd here) which apply to this article too. I still do not see even a single Secondary source to support even a single claim within the article!! In my firm view, and knowledge of WP rules, reliable sources are must to substantiate the claims on notability of a subject in the article. Lets see - how other editors justify a keep in the absence of secondary sources to substantiate the claims and keep the article. I also request Anasuyas to please correct the citation No 5 (in the article), since it is flagging in red now after your recent editing. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, typically these go for at least seven days before the decision is closed. I see no reason for us to tempt fate and bring on the Wikilawyering by closing this one early; nobody gets hurt if we do it by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument for "keep" is saying "yes she isn't notable but at a lower standard she is notable" When the voice for "keep" agrees that this is a non-notable topic what choice do we have but to delete? If someone wants to put forward the idea that Gaiti Hasan is notable and has received significant coverage from secondary sources I will entertain that, but any argument "no she's not notable but..." is hardly persuasive in my mind. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah people keep saying WP:PROF #3, and I just don't see that. What highly selective society is this person a part of?--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FIAS meets the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. Given the size of India, it is a highly selective society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Can Pomade[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable product. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-the product is only a few months old also. Wgolf (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAILN, a notability search fails to turn up anything notable besides some WP:ROUTINE coverage on etsy. I recommend per WP:ALTERNATIVE to put information on subject on a blog but not in an encyclapedia, per WP:ONEDAY this isn't a good fit for the topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Cheap Promo. Educationtemple (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The later comments in this discussion all agree that the relevant inclusion guideline has been passed, so I take it as consensus reached. Der yck C. 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somdatta Sinha[edit]

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

Not a notable figure. Could not find a notable contribution in google search that could justify WP biography. Source cited are poor or employer's website or blogspot page. Notability missing. Claims unsupported Educationtemple (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wgolf: Please see WP:PERNOM as a guide to making more cogent contributions to AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAILN, there lots of primary sources on from the topic but not much in the way of secondary sources about the topic. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I'd recommend writing a bio in Wikibios. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of INSA (the main national academy of its country) is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. We have that rule because the experts in the academy have a clearer picture of her accomplishments than we do, and by electing her have clearly stated her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of all three main Indian academies of sciences. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PROF C3 as above. Her h-index of 16 is lower than I might have expected for those fellowships, but close to the edge for PROF#C1 by itself, but C3 seems compelling, I'd like to see the C3 claims better verified by references eventually. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commmentNotability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.

In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the citation record. h factor needs to be analyzed more closely--by itself it same little, because h = 16 could mean 16 papers with 16 cites each , or 15 papers with 100 cites and one with 16--our conclusions would be very different. Further, the citations number by themselves also need to be supplemented by the importance of the journals. Checking Google Scholar at [8]: Most cited paper, published in the highest prestige physics journal in the world, Physical Review Letters, has 116 cites. The second is in Physica A, not so important, but with 84 citations. The third most cited, in Physical Review E, also a very important journal, has 83. The 4th ,with 71, is in a more specialized but important journal . Further counts: 55, 459. 47, 45, .... On the whole, I think this is sufficient, without having to analyze the societies. Note I would certainly not interpret a keep here as precedent--we consider each person individually, and in one of the articles nominated in this group, I have said delete because of the unimpressive record. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass (business)[edit]

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

Comes across as a dictionary term-usually I would just prod these but this case I'm wondering what others think also. The Arab article from what I can tell is just as bare bones. Wgolf (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. This is not the place for this definition. Educationtemple (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAILN when a topic can be merged to a target it should. I'm not sure the best place to merge this information to. per WP:ALTERNATIVE we already have an article in Wiktionary for this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kan Lal Agarwal[edit]

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

None of the source cited is a reliable source. All great claims made are not supported by any reliable source citation. Not sure how to support the claims and help to keep this article in WP, hence afd nom Educationtemple (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:N, WP:PROF and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The KAIST award in his name [9] isn't really evidence of notability (it's just a bequest from his will) and the bio there does not give me any stronger evidence of passing WP:PROF. Also the article is horribly written so even if he were notable WP:TNT may be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Cook Soccer Club[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a soccer club. I found two local newspaper articles that discuss the club's under 12 boys team, but nothing that establishes that the club is notable per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorian State League Division 4. It is a run-of-the-mill local soccer club with routine local coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Aymatth2. It is well-established that we require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Routine local sports page coverage in free local weekly giveaway newspapers and the like is not sufficient to establish notability. As for not liking it, that is also false. My sons played in a similar local soccer league, and my wife and I edited the league newsletter for several years. I like amateur sports but do not think that the vast majority of local amateur sports clubs are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly correct. The two articles that I found read like press releases.- Mr X 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They read like typical local news reportage, not like press releases at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in depth by multiple reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reads well, referenced too. Educationtemple (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, thanks for fixing your typo! It came up on the vandalism page as "a**es", so I was worried for a second! Lol, thanks for the fix. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed

CookieMonster755 - We have a vandalism page ?, Out of all the letters the keyboard chose to miss it had to be the "P"

- I nearly had a heart attack myself haha

, You're welcome :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I use a page called User:Lupin/Filter recent changes, which scans for recent edits that may be vandalism. Glad you got that before I accidentally referred your edit

Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CookieMonster755 - Wait so If I swear that tool picks it up ? .... Damn

, Well thanks for noticing I guess (Although I had hoped it would go undetected

), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Davey2010, anytime you swear, it is detected by that page

so be careful what you post on talk pages, because I may see it ;) Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha in that case I'll be on my best behaviour from now on

, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:ORG: [10][11][12]. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it gets to the National Premier Leagues, it will be notable, but its first team is not anywhere near to that. The Under-12s is just a passing mention in local news. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis you could nominate all the articles in category:Victorian State League teams for deletion. But that is not the way notability is determined. It is based on coverage by independent sources. Teams do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at those articles? The better articles are teams in the top 2 leagues in Victoria. Many of the others have no references or no independent references, so many of them should be proposed for deletion. Substantial coverage in independent sources is required. I agree that teams "do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank" so we have articles about teams that were in a top league but have moved down. One that has always been in a low league is different. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them should be improved by adding more content supported by reliable independent sources, always a better option and generally much less time-consuming. These teams typically get a fair amount of coverage in the local press. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis -

Closely connected: 1

The national youth soccer tournament organizer giving an extensive discussion of the club and junior teams.

Trivial: 2
One short paragraph that mentions the club: 3
A download link for an app (not a source at all): 4
Routine local coverage in with a PR tone: 5 6

A newspaper reporting on the local team's successes

Article about a member team that barely mentions the club in passing: 7

A news article about the main team in the club, the men's team. I know of no example where a distinction is made between the club, the main team and the junior teams,.

- Mr X 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comments above, indented. The notability test has nothing to do with importance. Just that reliable independent sources cover the subject in some depth, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, coverage is not significant and is all from local, minor newspapers. If it is kept, the article should be moved to Point Cook SC per standard naming conventions. Giant Snowman 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few local paper mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers are considered reliable independent sources, and these ones give significant coverage. The national tournament organizer also seems reliable. In what way does this fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? It is a textbook example of passing that guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is full of non-notable local soccer club articles that only survive because the sport has a lot of fans rather than because there is depth of secondary coverage. It has been shown above that the sources are inadequate to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cranford Hollow[edit]

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

Unreferenced, unnotable band. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There are some mentions in google. But not seems to be so notable yet. Educationtemple (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per too soon and nominator. (If it can be too soon since it does appear to be 5 years old) Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ngathrek Golop Lhakpa[edit]

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

Apparently a hoax. I can't find any reliable sources, or indeed any, that aren't newer than the article. A number of the alleged sources (which Google can't translate) look dubious. The Issue link is for instance self-published. Others have social media icons on them. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Nom. Educationtemple (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dzok Trun Trun and the rest of the author's edit history, the Wikipediocracy article, etc., it certainly looks like a hoax. I hope someone follows up and proposes an indef block on this account, for the passport audio file if nothing else. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the indef has now happened. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Rai[edit]

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

Not a notable figure in India. Article full of bogus claims such as "He is the first scientist who established ancient DNA research in India", all the media coverage cited are for the work of K. Thangaraj and NOT the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Almost feels like a hoax article. Wgolf (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first reference shows he is a bona fide researcher at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and works for K. Thangaraj, but the second indicates he does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC on his own. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many news reports do not even mention him. WP:ONEEVENT applies. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, but as Clarityfiend has noted, the subject does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. And as Redtigerxyz pointed out, most of the cited sources do not even mention the subject, or mention him in passing as a member of the research team. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is absolutely a hoax, at least in this version of the article as it was created by a sockpuppet (User:Aron&April654321 and User:AnthonyFernando5, who are basically the same person) that is notorious for creating these articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombeavers 2=[edit]

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

This is a likely hoax. Besides the fact that there are no hits for this, the creator has apparently inserted himself into several articles as the director of unannounced sequels, which are also likely hoaxes. Google searches for confirmation turn up nothing but fanfic and wikia profiles. Could probably be speedy deleted as G3, but I'm not sure it's blatant enough to qualify. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a obvious hoax, Found nothing on Google to verify its existence. –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, poorly written, likely hoax. My Google search also failed to find any reliable source coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being at the most polite WAY TOO SOON. I found a source telling us "...don’t forget to stay through the end credits. There’s a hint to a possible sequel waiting for you which can’t be called Zombeavers 2, but doesn’t really need too much of a title change" and there's also WP:RS British newspaper Metro saying "Expect to see Zombeavers 2: Dam You To Hell in the pipeline soon." So the topic is a possibility.... however, NONE of this article's purported cast or crew are searchable, when lends credence to this article being a hoax version of a topic that might exist in the future. If a real film actually becomes sourcable, then I'd have not prejudice against a properly cited recreation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this as a hoax. This is an article created by a sock of User:Aron&April654321 and this is pretty much in line with what they normally do: create hoax articles and list the same people in each one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darker Than Blood[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, no reason to believe that this song will become notable. Attemptsd to change to redirect rejected by page creator, so bringing to AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AFD stuff above as was somehow missing. So apologies if I missed something off or messed something up. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per these sources of significant coverage [13] [14], per WP:GNG. The song is going to be released as a single in just two days from now. Considering how popular Linkin Park are, there will most likely be even more coverage of the song before this AfD even closes. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I may not be a fan of Linkin Park, but I can't imagine them having a album being not notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not an album: it is an individual song. And it is not by Linkin Park, it's by somebody else. See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTCRYSTAL.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's in collaboration with Linkin Park. They co-wrote the song. --JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally find this AfD completely unnecessary. I mean, it was brought here two days before it's released? Really? Aside from that, the song is about to be released (tomorrow) and there are plentiful sources about the song, plus we'll probably see reception here soon (if it's not already available). They're debuting it on Twitch.tv today, which I'm sure they'll talk more about the song. --JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's completely unnecessary to bring this article to AFD. It's getting very close to April 14th for the song's official release. They might have already debuted it on Twitch.tv right now, so no matter what goes on, I'd rather agreed with JDC808 on this one. We'll definitely see more reception here soon enough, and I'm also sure they'll talk about the song even more. I'm a very huge fan of Linkin Park, and if this article becomes very long enough on this website with more resources and more reception, it could stay on there without having it deleted. Skylar3214 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I guess now we should let the article exist. Because now it's going to have a live debut, a worldwide premier and it also has a official lyric video in support. I don't see any reason for the deletion. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 05:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please wait until this discussion is closed before it stays as an article, Golu. It's not even over yet. Skylar3214 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Skylar I'm just giving a suggestion. Yeah I'm ready to wait. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 07:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice to the creation of a redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which anyone can do. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

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

This appears to be a POV Fork (not valid) as opposed to a Content Fork (valid) of Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or a potential copy and paste of some of that article.

This is a procedural nomination and I am making it a neutral nomination. Had I found the other article during WP:AFC I would have pushed this one back to the contributing author. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. Relevant content is covered more thoroughly and neutrally in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article's content, and the idea of having an article with this title, has been discussed before many, many times before by myself, DrFleischman, Famspear, Jkaganoff, 108.11.225.129, and 173.67.162.239 (one or both of these two IPs are probably same contributor as 108.11.228.250, who created this new article) on Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and in edit summaries on the article page. (Especially relevant is this.) Despite the protestations of this IP contributor, previous consensus has been against including much of this content and also against creating a POV fork named "Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". This appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus by avoiding the article talk page and instead using the WP:AFC process. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needless duplication of a subject already covered in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Hint: Virtually any "legal challenge" to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress would have to be a challenge based on its constitutionality -- so the two articles would, in effect, be two articles on the same topic. Famspear (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork as described above, relevant content discussions here, here. This contributor has been edit warring against consensus over this content since September 2014 and was blocked before they starting IP hopping. Based on their geolocation I also believe they have a COI concerning the Cutler case (which has been the primary focus of the edit warring, and which appears in this POV fork). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a plausible redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This page will not be eligible for deletion on grounds of the POV of its present content because that isn't a criteria for revision deletion, and the page will be NPOV if reduced to a redirect. We only delete a plausible redirect if it is positively harmful (WP:R), and I don't think the POV fork arguments above demonstrate that. James500 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that the article is POV, but that the article is a POV fork. WP:POVFORK: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Regardless, whether the removal of the content is accomplished by reducing it to a redirect or by actual deletion is just a technicality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, James500 for not linking to the term in the nomination. I'd like to thank DrFleischman for linking to it just now. I can see how the confusion arose, and have just linked the term in the nomination. I have also linked to the other term with Wikipedia:Content forking where there is a larger discussion of the matter. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The passage from POVFORK cited by Dr Fleischman above says nothing about forks that are also plausible redirects. In that case, the relevant guideline is WP:R. Since that guideline creates a very strong presumption against the deletion of plausible redirects, and their page histories, I do not see this as a technicality. James500 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:POVFORK or WP:R appears to take precedence over the other. Regardless, the two guidelines are not in conflict. WP:R says this about POV forks: "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated." This is the approach we should take here; the article should be deleted as a POV fork, which will reduce edit warring over content that has been rejected by consensus on numerous occasions. If an editor feels it necessary, they can then recreate it as a redirect. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV and a copyright violation (i.e. copying without attribution) and then recreate as a Redirect - very plausible search term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to failing to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Indians[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Other than its IMDb entry (where the full title is given as Land of Indians: a Story Before Vishwavijay), no information appears to be available about this film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-You have to love the unsourced "positive feedback" which unless if I'm missing something is not on the IMDB link. (I'm going to remove that statement). Anyway unless if this somehow is nominated for best short film not notable it appears. Or I should say unless if it actually gets some press somehow. Wgolf (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION of a new filmmaker's release to YouTube only as a 3-minute promotional device for his hoped-for longer film Vishwavijay (2016) No coverage, no reviews. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NF in all aspects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film has already released and thus deleting it may not be good at all. Further changes may be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ The film may not be notable but when it had released, there mustn't be a question of deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Struck IP's extra vote. Only one per customer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete As my film has already released, I don't think you should delete it. Rest depends on what you all want to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superprashast (talk • contribs) 06:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but simply having created and released a 3-minute film to YouTube is not a notability. Go study WP:NF to see what our inclusion criteria are. Get your film some coverage and analysis in reliable sources (not blogs, not forums) and then ask for it to be WP:REFUNDED. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then merge this page till it becomes notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge to what? Is there a related article? Does the director have a Wikipedia article? Or any of the actors? I don't see a viable merge target. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne West[edit]

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

only local references for notability. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been expanded and provided with additional references since nomination. In particular, I'd point out the text "West was named as one of Georgia Trend magazine's "Top 40 Under 40" in 2004, and was awarded Woman of the Year by Women in Technology in 2014." which seems to meet WP:BIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Disavian (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. DGG hits the nail on the head. Most of the references are either press releases from her employer (GIT), trivial mentions, or from trade/web sources. With the exception of the Atlanta Business Chronicle article, there are no mainstream sources that discuss her. Likewise, her work has not been highly cited or noted outside of her institution. The argument for "keep" seems, so far, to be the two awards: Georgia Trend magazine's "Top 40 Under 40" and "Woman of the Year" by Women in Technology (WIT). The former helps somewhat, although it is neither a national-level award, nor a widely recognized award, but the latter is an award from a relatively obscure non-profit foundation, which does not lend any help to notability. I think West probably will satisfy WP criteria at some point in the future, but does not at present. Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely in agreement with Agricola's fair summary. This article reads largely like a CV cited to 'stuff on the internet'. No doubt she's an extremely competent engineer and CEO, but falls short of WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Intelligently written promo article. Delete per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local business association awards, local trade magazine puff pieces, press releases, and promotional material on her employer's web site don't add up to true notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Mejor de... SELENA[edit]

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

Non-notable album release that is based on speculation and fancruft and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article should be deleted until it actually makes it on the Billboard charts. jona ^(talk) 19:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The album was barely released. I think you are just being unfair! Madonna's album Rebel Heart had an article a month before it was released! If she can have one Selena can! And Selena's album is already released. It's currently on iTunes charts. Just because your an official editor doesn't give you the right to act like the King of wikipedia! Lo Mejor de... SELENA should NOT be deleted! This user is being unfair to me! 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument, secondly Rebel Heart is a studio album that has multiple reliable sources that followed its anticipated release, this is a greatest hits album that may or may not impact the Billboard charts. Also, iTunes is a not an accepted music chart here on Wikipedia. I do believe the album may chart on Billboard, but we don't speculate that on Wikipedia. Best, jona ^(talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And other greatest hits album such as For You that album's article was created without a deletion way before it was released. and this album has multiple sources such as, Universal Music Latin Entertainment (the record company that released the album) and amazon. Do you need anymore?? What your being is unfair to the fullest

Can you please sign your name after you post a message? Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument. UMLE is not a reliable source for its own album releases because it is biased and Amazon is not a reliable source at all, so yes can you please provide sources that tell readers why this article merits its own article here? I am not being unfair, if Wikipedia decided to allow any album by any artist to have its own article we would have tons and tons of non-notable articles with nonsense; not saying that this album and its content is nonsense. Wikipedia has guidelines on music (see WP:NALBUMS for further information). jona ^(talk) 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much what AJona1992, plus it fails as a standalone article per WP:NALBUMS. Erick (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to keep per AJona's comment below. Erick (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AJona1992 and Gene93k plus WP:CRYSTAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to keep per AJona's comment below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw deletion: the album has peaked on the US Billboard 200, Top Latin Albums, Regional Mexican Albums, and the Latin Pop Albums chart. jona ^(talk) 23:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn, but an outstanding delete !vote still exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. Der yck C. 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 1982[edit]

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

Not news. A state or provincial internal part election is excessive detail for an individual encyclopedia. We have Ontario CCF/NDP leadership elections which is appropriate and sufficient detail, and there is thus no need to merge or redirect.

I'm also nominating the 2 other similar articles for the 1996 and 2009 elections:

DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Suttungr (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Firstly there is plentiful significant coverage to meet the main notability guideline, so that should not be in question. The articles also meet the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline due to firstly having a lasting and significant effect (the leaders leading the parties for many years and Bob Rae going on to be Premier of Ontario), secondly they received coverage at least nationally across Canada, so is not just local coverage, and thirdly is not just a short burst of coverage - for the 2009 election for instance the coverage lasted for over a year. As such these are definitely not the routine news reports that WP:NOTNEWS talks about (writing about the 1982 election 33 years after the event also stretches my definition of NOTNEWS to breaking point). Wikipedia has long had this type of articles as can be seen in Category:Leadership elections in Canada and I struggle to see how these New Democrat elections are any different to any of the others. Per WP:POLITICIAN we consider all members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly to be notable so a leadership election for a major party in that assembly, that gets significant coverage should be notable. The list of elections cannot explain and provide the reasons and details about the elections that the reader wants and needs, rather than just an unexplained list of results, which individual articles can do. The articles could certainly be improved, but the Good Article nominee article - Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014 - shows how this can be done. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Leadership elections for major Ontario political parties are all notable. If you nominate these articles you would also have to nominate the seven articles for Ontario Liberal Party leadership elections and the twelve articles for Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership elections. Suttungr (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted I will do just that. Looking at Leadership_election, except for Canada, all the others are national elections, not provincial. I'm not suggesting removing the information. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list you reference is far from comprehensive. If you want a non-Canadian example, there are several Scottish leadership articles which have a similar sub-nationality to them as do Canadian provinces. Suttungr (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the ones that exist for British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Quebec and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland too. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although further sourcing improvements would certainly still be welcome, "provincial vs. national" is not what constitutes the difference between a leadership election that gets a standalone article and one that just gets a subsection in an overview list — the amount of work that people are prepared to put into writing and sourcing substantive detail about the election, beyond a mere table of the vote totals, is what tips the scale one way or the other. All three of these articles do provide enough context and substance to stand alone, and are already not unsourced; while it's true that the ones before 1982 haven't been spun off from the parent list, that's because the work hasn't been actively undertaken by anyone and not because the topics fail to be eligible for that treatment. By all means flag for further referencing improvement, but all three of these should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. A valuable addition to Ontario's political history. It takes good research efforts to put articles like these together and it would be a shame to lose them. Atrian (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates For Change[edit]

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

promotional article for local organization in one city dealing with a problem that is general, where there are many nationwide organizations . I do not se themas notable in any sense, and no notice besides the immediate area. WP is not Wikilocal. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a state wide organization, not a local one. It is mentioned at least in 3 independent RS directly. As it has its origins under Colorado CURE, there are some more indirect mentions of this group dating back as far as 2005 [15], [16] Not necessarily the most notable organization, but not non-notable either, IMO. ViperFace (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's state level. But we don;t include state branches of national societies. Even for much larger ones. Not the NAACP, Not the NRA. Not the ACLU. Not anybody. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Well, I kind of see your point but don't completely agree. Is there WP policy covering this? I might be splitting hairs here but I'm not sure if calling AFC as a state branch of anything is entirely correct. AFAIK, AFC has been around longer than RSOL (under which state level groups have started loosely coming together) which has national scope in it's advocacy. If I understand correctly, the state groups that are associated with RSOL have merely adopted some of the same goals, but remain otherwise completely independent. Some state groups even seem to be more notable than loose umbrella organization they are part of. This is not the case with this group, but I mean if there is a blanket WP policy covering this, it's not necessarily wise in all cases. This is bit clumsy comparison, but I would liken this to NHL and individual teams with goal of playing hockey, which they do independently, but come together under NHL. I'm not US citizen so I don't know much about the formation of ACLU or NAACP, whether they came to be from multiple state level groups or was it the other way around, or how much control the national level organizations hold over state groups. Obviously, I'm for keeping this article, but let's see what happens. ViperFace (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one ref in the article that is about the organization--everything else is about the sex offender problem. This therefore fails to meet WP:GNG, which is normally our minimum guideline (Professional Hockey teams have hundreds or thousands of articles written about them.) And , since the WP article talks almost entirely about the need for reform in this area and not about the group, it could in addition probably be speedy deleted via G11 for being promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This information is quite interesting and would provide a more neutral point of view if it were merged into the Sex offender article. When and if this organization goes 'national' and becomes more notable on its own, then that would be the time for its own article.

Bfpage |leave a message 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're even a major voice in that, considered the breadth of the problem and the many national-level groups that are involved in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable group and references mention group only in passing. Article created as part of a massive POV push by a single-purpose account.--MONGO 21:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. WP is not the place to advocate for pedophiles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per DGG's reply above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Davina McCall. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Robertson (presenter)[edit]

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

Not notable. Redirect to Davina McCall. Fuddle (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Davina McCall Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Davina McCall, based on the cited news articles being about (or by) McCall. If this was an article about a famous man's wife I'm sure we'd have dozens of Wikipedians stamping all over it! Sionk (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7 Shot Screamers. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Flame Alive[edit]

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums Missvain (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 7 Shot Screamers - Insufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. Non notable music label, not even an assertion of notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. I couldn't find any coverage and we need more than one line of prose, a track listing, and an infobox to justify an article on an album.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7 Shot Screamers. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Teenage 7 Shot Screamer[edit]

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

I believe this album fails notability guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. Perhaps others can prove me wrong! Missvain (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 7 Shot Screamers. Insufficient sources to satisfy relevant notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. I couldn't find any coverage and we need more than one line of prose, a track listing, and an infobox to justify an article on an album.--Michig (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Genital modification and mutilation#Female genitals. Notability of the topic is not in question, but how to organize the content about it, and all comments after a certain point agree that this content is already covered in an existing article. Sandstein 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital cosmetic surgery[edit]

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

Non-notable with little to no third party sources. Also a merge to Cosmetic surgery would be an idea. Tinton5 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is by no means my field of expertise, but a very quick search produced a plethora of relevant sources, many of which satisfy all the requirements of WP:N. Review papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals! I can't honestly see how the nominator can claim a lack of notability. (Their previous attempt at speedy deletion via CSD A1 was equally bewildering.) I also don't think there's any merit to a merger with cosmetic surgery, itself only a section of the wider plastic surgery. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genital modification and mutilation, which links to the two articles this subject looks to claim: vaginoplasty and labiaplasty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As Stemonitis says, there are numerous sources for this and so the notability of the topic is quite evident. Also, merger is not deletion and so the nomination is doubly mistaken. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very popular topic, and there are documentary films about it. I found the following on Google: this article from The Guardian, this article from CBC.ca, and this article from BBC Online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question @NinjaRobotPirate, Andrew Davidson, and Stemonitis: Could you help me to understand this one? Here is the entirety of the article after the lead: FGCS can be divided into two types. Vaginoplasty, in which the vagina, which may have been loosened due to childbirth or aging, is tightened. Labiaplasty, in which the size and shape of the labia is changed; this can be performed on either the labia majora and labia minora. Reduction of the labia minora is the most common form of female genital surgery. -- It is a subject broken into two types, which we already have pretty good articles for: labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. We also have the article Genital modification and mutilation, which includes a section Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. In other words, the subject is covered in two places already. What isn't a duplication? The only way I can make sense of it is if the intention here is to break surgery away from the domain of Genital modification and mutilation, maybe? But if we're talking about a category that includes two subjects which already have well developed articles, it seems this page would wind up being little more than a disambiguation. Maybe if it were renamed to include male genital plastic surgery (i.e. genital plastic surgery)? I'm not in a position to research how often that term is used, at the moment, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was not aware of those other articles when I made my first comment (although I should perhaps have realised there would be coverage of the subject somewhere). I would have no objection to a merger into any/all of those articles. My original comment was only really addressing the question of whether the subject is notable, which it plainly is. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Merger is not deletion and, in any case, it is not possible to merge to two different targets at the same time. In such cases, WP:CONCEPTDAB indicates that a summary-level page is appropriate. And Rhododendrites says that he is no position to research this. Just how hard is it to click on one of the search links above where you will immediately see a stack of scholarly papers such as:

Female genital cosmetic surgery
In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital 'cosmetic' surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery: Freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory
The Women Are Doing It For Themselves: The Rhetoric of Choice and Agency around Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery: A critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates
Female genital cosmetic surgery–the future
Female genital cosmetic and plastic surgery: a review
Female cosmetic genital surgery
Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?

Please do such research before proposing solutions to problems that may not exist. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work with you here, there's no need to be defensive or to harp on my "no position to research this" as if it invalidates my points -- the only thing that I needed to research was if "genital plastic surgery" was the proper term for the concept of combined male and female surgeries, and you didn't even allow the argument to get to that point.
The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Of course it's relevant, if we already have articles on both of them as well as on a broader subject.
Nobody has confused merger for deletion, so why make that rhetorical point when you know that merge is a viable outcome of AfD? Regardless, what content is there to merge?
The point is that this very content is already duplicated in two places. My issue isn't about whether the term is used or whether the concept is notable, because it certainly is, ...and that's why we already cover it in a couple different places. In fact it's because it's notable that this should be redirected as providing no original content beyond where the topic is already covered -- because while the topic is notable, it's better covered elsewhere right now and we should be pointing readers interested in the subject there, not showing them a shoddy spin-off with no original content. Yes, if it were me I would have boldly redirected it rather than AfDed it, but this is where we are -- with an impoverished article about an important topic that we cover in much more depth elsewhere. Certainly not opposed to moving it to the draftspace, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's overlap, and this spinout does seem a bit early. I was thinking about those issues, but I've actually seen a documentary that focused entirely on this singular issue. I forget the name of it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the British one described in one of those links I posted. There's a specific debate over the ethics of cosmetic surgery on female genitalia, and there has been a lot written about why young women would want to get cosmetic surgery on something that can't normally be seen. I think that this current article could fairly easily be merged into Genital modification and mutilation, but if it were expanded, it would possibly dominate that article. There's a lot of information about the topic. I wouldn't be against broadening to topic, but that's a debate for the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Genital modification and mutilation as suggested by rhododendrites. BakerStMD 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhododendrites and perhaps refine to § Female genitals. Not § Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty because the other subsections appear also satisfying the title. The original article equating FGCS with only those two kinds looks slightly original research without sources making the definition out right. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) + 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frühstückstreff[edit]

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

Unremarkable social network. The notability has been questioned for 2 years, so seems article won't be improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No notability, as evident by an internet search, which only pulls up the Wikipedia page, a Facebook page, and sources from the website itself. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. One article in the FAZ. --Boson (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not even in the German Wiki (I checked). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YoungGoldie[edit]

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

Definitely a case of TOOSOON, sources are either irrelevant, (potentially) incorrect, or a single paragraph with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The better ones of the sources provided in the article do not mention YougGoldie at all. Huon (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Should've been deleted the first time round imho. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keya Seth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wholly non-notable . Can find no mention of subject in either of the two refs given (one appears to be a dead-link). No encyclopaedic merit. Previous AfD was rejected because it was nominated by a sock and not for any perceived value in the article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- There are a few links mentioning her and she does have a brand of products-think Myrta Perales in the 1980's who was super-famous in Puerto Rico and in the Eastern seaboard of the USA because of her brand's commercials-but unfortunately, all links about her seem to be connected to her directly.Antonio The Gas Martin (que fue?) 13:15, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Reads like a promo. Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to console exclusivity. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid exclusivity[edit]

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

Sometimes, the right answer is to bite the newbie and delete the article. When the original content was seemingly written by a petulant child, the wrong answer is to try and polish it. This article is essentially a POV-fork to console exclusivity and should just be deleted and redirected.

"Paid exclusivity" is not a term used anywhere but in forums populated by gamers with no understanding of business, which is why the earliest example cited dates from only 2007. In media where the most vocal aren't petulant children, people generally understand that you have to pay for exclusivity agreements, so "paid exclusivity" is not a term used when discussing things like sports rights. No one is going to search for "paid exclusivity" to look for anything other than video games. - hahnch e n 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Console exclusivity, which seems to be about the same thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2015 (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) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Gene that there is some content here that could go nicely in Console exclusivity. "Paid exclusivity" when not focused on just consoles is too broad of a concept. it could contain everything from intellectual properties to tariffs. What this article is really about is Console exclusivity ( which doesn't have a section for paid exclusivity so it would make the article better for the reader ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to console exclusivity. Not independently notable apart from a general topic on "exclusivity agreements in video games". If that's currently called "console exclusivity", that works. As a phrase, though, the topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No dedicated coverage about "paid exclusivity" as a practice apart from exclusivity deals themselves and reports of individual paid exclusive deals. The phrase only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to console exclusivity. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sufi saints[edit]

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

Lists are not to be Wikipediac. Also most of the names lsited there are unauthentic saints except a few like Abdul-Qadir Gilani, Moinuddin Chishti, Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki. Wasif (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator created with page without using the afd2 template or transcluding to log page. Fixed now--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 09:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit if necessary. The article qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sufi saints. Furthermore, the article does have citations verifying content therein. Subjects not confirmed as saints can be removed from the article/category if needed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP has lots of lists. In the early days of WP, they were useful for identifying significant subjects that needed an article, something that a category cannot do. I suspect that what persons were (or were not) saints is a POV-issue among Sufi Muslims, but that is something that can be accomodated in a list - by adding text to explain the issue, but cannot be handled by a category at all. I am not a Muslim and take no view on the merits of any of the persons concerned. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Programs broadcast by Zee Bangla. Nobody wants to keep it, but I still can't find a consensus to delete because the argument for notability by Michig hasn't seriously been addressed. That said, there's no support for keeping the content around in this form, so redirect until somebody bothers to improve the article. Sandstein 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khela (TV series)[edit]

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

non-notable show, part of a massive group of shows with very little content created by puppets (see User talk:Tanns.25630 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj for more background) Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article from the Times of India describes it as "the hit Bengali show, 'Khela' (Game) which was on air on Zee Bangla about a decade back. The show had seen overwhelming success and was the No 1 show across all Bangla GECs. It is remembered even today in Bengali households for its gripping narrative and brilliant characterization.", while this article from The Hindu calls it "the famous Bangla serial Khela", and this indicates that it won an award (all of these are cited in the article), so I'm afraid you're going to have to give a better explanation of why it isn't notable than simply stating "non-notable". --Michig (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
maybe someone could make that more obvious by including more context in the article than "The show was about two women supporting each other." This was part of a massive group of articles created by puppets and I did not look at every reference on every article, it was time enough to nom them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or delete. This is a common problem with AfDs: Someone suggests their deletion because the article fails to support its notability, then another cites article here to say it is notable. Either expand the new article to show its notability or it should be deleted/redirected to Programs broadcast by Zee Bangla, which is AfD'ed. — Wylie pedia 04:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Students Movement[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The phrase is awkward to source but I can find nothing but mirrors that obviously relate to this Indian organisation. There was a claim that George Reddy founded this group but it does not appear in press coverage for the 40th anniversary of his murder. Sitush (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was just reading about the Naxalites in National Geographic last night. That seems like a good redirect target, if one is left. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that this article has been relisted again. Can it not be dealt with as effectively an expired PROD? I know that there are admins who frequent AfD and are prepared to do this. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nepali television channels. Been up 2/3 weeks with only one !vote so meh redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Filmy[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources covering this entertainment channel: fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to List of Nepali television channels. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 13:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samwais[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, cannot find any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ARTIST. Esquivalience ^t 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Won "awards from some of the Art Festivals", but no references to establish which these are. Could not verify claim. Seattle (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unique name. If there was material out there it would have turned up on searches. Id didn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Entrepreneur[edit]

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

lack of independent sources fails WP:GNG . Recreation of prev deleted article. (note creator and at least one other promo only account which created deleted version) Widefox; talk 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written article providing little or no information about the subject's notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring more, credible sources to document notability. It seems hardly coincidental that this article was created several months after the deletion of the first with some identical promotional text: "The Asian Entrepreneur stands as the world’s first and authoritative source on Asian entrepreneurship". If we do not have sock-puppetry here, we seem to have at least meatpuppetry. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The band's article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull and Bones (band), and no one's advocating keeping this in the absence of that article. Deor (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Return Ticket To Mars[edit]

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

non-notable album WP:ALBUM from non-notable band. Widefox; talk 18:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. Wgolf (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and the band's article is going to get deleted too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. The band article looks to be heading for deletion, and if it does get deleted this can get deleted at the same time, but if the situation changes and the band article stays then this should stay as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mastamind. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lickkuiddrano[edit]

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

Non notable album-maybe a redirect or a merge to the band. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themindzi Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mastamind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mastamind. The nomination suggests maybe redirecting or merging, which should have been considered more thoroughly before bringing this to AfD. --Michig (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrism and Fenris[edit]

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

Tagged by Duffbeerforme for lack of WP:NOTABILITY 7 years ago; still no resolution. There is coverage, but I don't think it's enough to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source that looks promising is the book Experimental Music: Audio Explorations in Australia but the only content about this duo in there is "and Chrism and Fenris, who reconfigure Commodore 64 and GameBoy controllers to make their music". Nothing much else found from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WAMi awards are regional. I did find a few gig listing but nothing non trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Of note is that User:Bettifm was blocked (by another admin) for removing the AfD template from the article, and was later indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry (by another admin). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When We Go To War[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON at best; doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Pinging creator, plus Shirt58 and Zeke Essiestudy who have looked at its notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like it's a major TV series which has been commissioned to mark the centenary of the Gallipoli campaign, and sources are available: [17], [18], [19] (which says that it's received more government funding than any previous TV series) Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above, Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and unblock User:Bettifm who was blocked for removing the AFD notice. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Qualtrough[edit]

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

Fictional character on a show that was barley in it. Wgolf (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character played a significant role in series 7. He had less screen time than Connie, but both were involved in the Sugar Horse subplot which was a significant part of that series.Autarch (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to List of Spooks characters. The significance of the character to primary sources is irrelevant, we need significant coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject per the WP:GNG to build a fact-based encyclopedia, not a fan Wikia. I haven't thoroughly investigated, but my reasoning likely applies to several other peripheral Spooks characters with independent articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' per Animalparty. Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arnold Air Society. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lt Col Ralph S. Van Brunt Squadron of Arnold Air Society[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable poorly sourced and written extension with long list of non-notable people. Article on Arnold Air Society already exists.--NingaTech (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2015 (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/2015 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arnold Air Society. ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arnold Air Society as squadron is not independently notable. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is indefinitely banned. This is one of a number of AfDs they have filed in violation of their ban. Ivanvector (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck nomination per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arnold Air Society. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bass[edit]

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only secondary is a local radio covering it. Sounds like a cool musician but not notable in an Encyclopedic way. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Updated content being added - will source/references to better conform. Thank you for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeeyewhy (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and is Promotional and lacks WP:RS third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough in these sources for a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and criteria #1 of WP:MUSICBIO: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-It seems to be nicely sourced and does look overall like a person who does meet Wikipedia bios. Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some extra independent sources but clearly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Gnecco[edit]

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

Businessman whose notability is in question-the site is gone now it appears as well. And I am not even sure if this company is notable. Wgolf (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Article on comapny was deleted. Pinging Keithbob who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and lacks independent third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, it's unanimous. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifier of the point[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEO, WP:PROMO ― Padenton|✉ 01:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 01:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 01:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is content to be in an article ( it's able to be referenced from reliable source) but it isn't notable so while this content could be in an article, it isn't really the subject of its own article. a news search didn't turn up any secondaries. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although the content is not notable in the atricle referenced, it's important for the concept of Point. The point is one of the five components of the subject-UGCCNet. The design idea of the Point ID aims at enabling global access which is significant for the UGCCNet. It is also observed that the item Point ID appears many many times in the four standards which further proves its importance. Hbjhappy (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Hbjhappy (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, Michig (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are primary sources, no notable secondary source coverage. PianoDan (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment according to the references, the item does play an important role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habert. L. (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)— Habert. L. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I think the item is usefull. After reading the references, I agree with Hbjhappy. The item is woth keeping.Brene Brown (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)— Brene Brown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, lacks reliable, independent third party sources. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 20:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. In all my years of looking, the only sort-of reliable source I have found which mentions this community is this, which is basically a passing mention in a list. According to that source, it isn't even a major gotra but rather a sub-gotra. Redirecting to Banjara won't really work because I am sure that, as a sub-gotra, the thing does exist across various castes rather than just one (yes, this is WP:OR but it is based on a lot of experience).

This was de-PRODed. The unfortunately-named Arb (talk · contribs) showed a lack of clue when pushing the WP:ARS agenda. I left a note here, after recently leaving this one. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Sitush's analysis, I see no evidence that this is a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have added three references. The history of the article and its talk page is also worth a gander. -Arb. (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are unreliable (an bigoted, casteist open wiki, a mirror of ourselves etc) and will be removed. Your own history with ARS is worth a gander. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That calmer heads may prevail, the references were:

https://www.jatland.com/home/Toor

https://www.academia.edu/1092421/Deeper_Roots_Of_The_Gill_Bhatti_Sidhu_Brar_Toor_and_Related_Jat_and_Rajput_Clans

http://demojatt.weebly.com/major-muslim-jatt-clane.html

None are obvious mirrors of the the current Wikipedia article.-Arb. (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you could read WP:RS? Jatland.com is an open wiki and often mirrors us; demojatt is a mirror of Jatland content (even the formatting makes that clear) and in any event nothing on weebly is likely to carry much weight; academia.edu is obviously SPS and we do not use sources affiliated with the caste. FWIW, the weebly thing looks like an old version of Tribes and clans of the Pothohar Plateau.

I thought Davidson/Colonel Warden was bad but this is ridiculous. Will I have to review all of your recent contributions? There seems possibly to be a WP:CIR issue here and I'm considering asking that you be topic banned from deletion procedures because this is not the first instance. You're wasting my time and everyone else's. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the references.

The Jatland article is 15,500 bytes, ours 856; can't possibly be a mirror.
The Demojatt content is completely different from it.
The academia.edu article is apparently well referenced; see its bibliography. Also, kindly link the Wikipedia policy banning the use of "sources affiliated with the caste".

And cut out the ad hominem attacks; Prod and AfD are mature processes; they exist for good reasons and work well for the most part. -Arb. (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the jatland article was a mirror of this WP article, nor does a mirror have to reflect the most current WP version of any article. Get it into your head that Jatland is a bloody open wiki, that Demojatt is an obvious case and that WP:CONSENSUS applies with regard to so-called family histories (see, for example, sanskritisation - they make them up all the time). You know nowt about this subject and clearly do not want to learn! - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare, say, this at jatland from 2011 - The Aheer have two theories of their origin. Some claim descent from Qutub Shah, who is also the ancestor of the Awan tribe, while other connect themselves with the ... etc with the Demojatt source. Then look at us in 2010. You might also want to check the Jatland editor's name, since someone bearing the same name has been an absolute pain on Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons relating to caste-warrior POV and copyright. (There is another of similar propensity in the mix - WALTHAM2). - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there are no reliable secondary sources to be found for this. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk, lacking WP:RS. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nashville FC. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFC Roadies[edit]

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

I don't find this organization to be notable, per WP:ORG. It was founded only last year, and has received only a little bit of purely local coverage. Could be redirected/merged to Nashville FC. MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashville FC as a possible search term, not independently notable. Giant Snowman 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only secondary source that would be presumed reliable is a local newspaper which I don't think is enough notable enough. The Notability requirement isn't needed for any sourcable material here to be placed in Nashville FC so that would be my recommendation to the editors. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With the additional Farsi sources, the recent comments to the discussion moved towards the consensus that the relevant inclusion guidelines have been met. Der yck C. 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Bahadorani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a claim that he has played in the Iranian Pro League. A claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - before I spend too much time on a wild goose chase, which reliable sources do you have that indicate that Bahadorani didn't play in a fully professional league. Also, can you relist Yampi and Poormohamad in separate AFDs? There seems to be ample evidence that they played professionally ... unless I've once again confused Iran and Iraq ... :) Nfitz (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source listed in the article only lists appearances in the Azadegan League. Absent sources confirming it, we can't assume he has played in the Persian Gulf Pro League (or any other FPL for that matter). Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearances a few years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you persist in claiming he only has 1 appearance when 2 appearances have been documented. [33] shows 2 appearances in 2009/2010 (1 whole match and another match where he started but did not complete). These matches are August 2009 and October. Nfitz (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Farsi version of this page fa:ابوالفضل بهادرانی says that he used to play with Foolad F.C.. And old edit of that page from 5 years ago does show him in the squad - [34] and he does appear in 2009–10 Foolad F.C. season. The question is, did he make an appearance? Are there any good sources of line-ups or stats from that period? At the age of 36, I do have to wonder where the records of the rest of his career are. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he ever actually palyed for Foolad FC, so he does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually User:Johnpacklambert he did make a start for Foolad F.C. according to [35]. It was on the season opener August 6, 2009. Thus he has made at least one appearance in a league listed in WP:FPL meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this certainly raises some interesting questions, it is still not enough for notability in my opinion. There's a fairly well-established consensus that older footballers who are at or near the end of their career with only a small number of WP:FPL appearances fall under the part of the lede of WP:NSPORT which says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept (emphasis theirs), as evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu and other afd's listed by GiantSnowman in that discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is consensus at a large number of AFDs that one appearance is not sufficient when a player so comprehensively fails GNG. That applies here as well. Giant Snowman 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've freqently kept the article of an active player as soon as evidence of a fully professional start has been found. The goal post is moving here. You prodded the article claiming he hadn't played in a fully-pro league. When challeneged that the linked Farsi version claimed he had played in fully pro league you then nominated for deletion with claim that there were no reliable sources that he had played in fully pro league. When provided with a reliable source that he had played in a fully pro league and thus meets WP:NFOOTBALL you are now trying to ignore WP:NFOOTBALL. The basis of the nomination hasn't been met. I'm also curious as to where he was before his 2009 pro appearance. He was already in his 30s then - it seems unlikely he appeared from nowhere. It would be nice if people would research these players properly before nominating or voting delete. And it would be nice if people didn't falsely claim that WP:NFOOTBALL hasn't been met, when it has. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we traditionally allow greater tolerance when it is a young player at the start of their career. But a 36 year old whose sole professional appearance came 6 years ago?! C'mon... Giant Snowman 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sole~~ documented appearance on a team listed in WP:FPL. But we can't document where he was for the previous 10-15 years ... it seems odd that he's the starter for top team one season, and can't be found the year before. I think we are missing something. I'm also trying to verify he is really that old. And surely he's still a professional player - he is playing for the reserve squad these days, for the team he made an appearance for in 2009. It's not like his career is over ... 36 is often when keepers hit their prime. Still, I'm not sure why you haven't deleted your comment about the player not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL - which he does. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote above clarified. Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your clarification above is based on a "sole" appearance, which isn't the case. The examples you cite above all appear to be either for players who only had a sole appearance (often for only a few minutes), or have retired; the only exception I can see was since recreated and kept. I don't see any examples of players who had multiple-appearances in a national highest-level league who are still active (heck, I'm not sure there's even any examples for someone who had a sole appearance in a national top-level league and are still active!) Nfitz (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he didn't have a "sole" appearance. He also played an entire match on October 27, 2009 - [36]. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't even know how many appearances he made? Seeing as this which 'you provided says only one, now you say two...? Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initially misinterpreted that table. I thought it said he had 1 appearance, and 1 game where he left during the match. What it says is that he played 1 "Whole" match and 1 other match which he did not complete (if you read down, there are players who had 0 "Whole" appearances, but many games where they entered or exited matches). After I realised that, it was just a matter of finding that second match. I think there were only 2 appearances that season ... though he was almost 31 when he first appears out of nowhere ... I'd guess he was bouncing around the lower leagues and reserve squad before that, but it seems odd that I can't find any record of it. Nfitz (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AZADEGAN IS A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE! (unsigned comment by User:Perspolis-ghermez)

If User:Perspolis-ghermez could provide a reference supporting that, it would really help the debate. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is mentioned in the Foolad F.C. official website that he has played in 16 games as a goalkeeper for this team. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the sources he is notable.Samək^Talk 10:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mehran Hhplactube (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Management: Co-operatives and Credit Unions[edit]

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

This article is about a single (mostly online) master's degree program at a single university. The article mostly explicates syllabus- and directory-like information (e.g., program info, admissions criteria, and areas of study). I do not believe it meets the general notability guideline. While there are references, and the topic plainly exists, the references that I could access (there were a number of 404 errors) seem to consist of a few short pieces in trade publications about the program (without any in-depth coverage), plus a number of cites to mere passing references (or directory material - e.g., "GradSchoolFinder.com."). The program should probably be mentioned at Saint Mary's University (Halifax), but it seems to lack independent notability. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a more detailed dive for those interested - Ref 1 is a brief article in a trade magazine. It contains about four paragraphs on the program itself and then several more paragraphs not related to this program. Ref 2 is a 404 error. Ref 3 is a trivial passing mention in a trade publication. Ref 4 is a blog-type reflection from a student in the program on a website of trade weekly email newsletter (not an independent source). Ref 5 is another brief article in the same trade magazine as #1; it contains only a few pieces of hard info on the program itself, and does not explain its notability. #6 is another 404 error, but seems to be another cite to a coop newsletter. #7 is a two-page article in a trade journal from the director of the program itself (again, not an independent source). Ref #8 is simply a directory listing from the accreditor. Ref #9 is another 404 error. Ref #10 is simple directory material from GradSchoolFinder.com. Ref #11 is a 404 error, but appears to have been a cite to a digest one a co-op federation website. Ref #12 and Ref #13 are also both 404 errors, but appear to be links reflecting localized, non-notable awards for the program. Neutrality^talk 04:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG with in depth coverage in sources like the National Post article, the Rural Cooperatives article, and the book Cooperation, Community, and Co-ops in a Global Era. I agree that the unnecessary detail could be purged from the article though. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Post reference is brief. It has a few sentences on the program and a quote from the prof who founded it as part of a broader discussion of the "countless" varieties of MBA programs out there. The Cooperation, Community, and Co-ops reference is literally a passing mention, citing only to the program's own newsletter. The article in Rural Cooperatives (from a freelance author) does have somewhat more detail, but standing alone it does not seem significant. If something with this level of coverage is deemed notable, the literally tens of thousands of individual MBA programs (or indeed, graduate or undergraduate programs) will be notable. I recognize that the focus of this particular program (co-ops) is unconventional, but the coverage is extremely run-of-the mill. Neutrality^talk 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There is a claim of notability that is compelling and probably should be in the lede: "the only English-language master's degree in co-operative management by a business school that is internationally accredited"
The following are enough for me to accept as significant coverage:

Four paragraphs in the National Post[37]
Three pages in Rural Cooperatives[38]

It is also helpful to the article's case that the director of the programme had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal[39]

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONLY, though: "Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something." Neutrality^talk 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that it both meets the GNG and is the only something. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been going on for almost a month now and there's no evidence that it's moving closer to any sort of consensus forming. A straight vote count provides a slight edge to the "Keep" side, but not a decisive one or one that indicates consensus has been reached to take any particular course of action. In particular, on the subjective question of whether the coverage that exists for this person is sufficiently substantial, there appears to be no clear agreement between editors, despite extensive discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. William Phelps[edit]

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

True-crime author with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage. EEng (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Subject is a noteworthy published author and is widely written about. Passes WP:AUTHOR. The reviews are not panning the author's "TV appearances." Some are about a TV crime series he developed and hosted on the Investigation Network. I have added third-party sources to it and will continue improving upon the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but can you point to the sources qualifying for GNG or AUTHOR? The only source I can find giving anything more than passing mentions is [40], and that's hardly GNG's "significant coverage". Beyond that he won the "Genre" category at the 2008 New England Book Festival (whatever that is) [41] and that doesn't give us any of AUTHOR's criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

EEng (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the subject is an author "with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances" appears to be inaccurate. There has been extensive secondary coverage of a TV documentary series he developed and hosted, including USA Today here, the Denver Post here, KTFF TV 2, the Associated Press and the Peninsula Daily News. He was featured in Writers Digest here. As for awards, one of his books was a New York Times bestseller, and he won a Society of Professional Journalists award. The awards and media coverage meet WP:GNG. Those are now cited in the article. As for negative reviews, or "panning," the documentary series was criticized by the New York Daily News here. I am unaware of a requirement that to pass WP:GNG the coverage of the subject needs to be positive. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't have to be positive, but it does have to be coverage.

The Society of Professional Journalist's Award -- so impressive those words sound! -- turns out to be second place in the "Investigative reporting - magazine" category from the Connecticut chapter of this society -- and the list of awards given by the Connecticut chapter that year covers thirteen pages [42] -- about 250 awards in all! Multiplying by 50 states in the US we might estimate there to be some 12000 such awards each year -- hardly notability material.
What you call being "featured in Writer's Digest" is a phony set-piece interview on a promotional website, as seen in the url you link to http://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/by-writing-goal/get-published-sell-my-work/m-william-phelps-expanded-interview ("get-published-sell-my-work").
Everything else is press-release WP:ROUTINE stuff about his TV shows (not him), most of which mention him only in passing with the usual puffy quotes -- one mentions him just once! EEng (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your saying "everything else" is press-release driven or a puff piece does not make it so. You failed to recognize the New York Time bestseller, the New England book award, that one of his books has been optioned for a film, or to recognize that the Associated Press wrote an article about him and the documentary series, which was picked up by other news outlets. The Associated Press, as well as book reviews done by Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, are not publications looked upon as driven by press releases. A search on Worldcat distribution, here, shows that his title Nathan Hale alone is carried by 768 libraries for four editions of that book, which is substantial. Based on the coverage, the subject is a notable author and TV producer, as shown by the cited sources. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's well established that being a bestseller has (some) notability value for the book itself, but none for its author (though it's something to mention in the author's article, obviously -- if he has an article, which depends on his own notability). Same for library holdings
I mentioned the "New England Book Festival" award already -- it's a minor local award.
The reviews are about Phelps' books, not him. Here, for example, is every mention of him in the Kirkus review:

Veteran true-crime author Phelps chronicles the story of the killing … Two Houston homicide detectives provide the focal point for Phelps .... The author is respectful of the police ... Phelps reports in unimaginative, sometimes overwhelming detail.

This is "substantial coverage" of Phelps?

There's nothing here about the subject. EEng (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I found and added a Good Morning America appearance (here) where the subject is interviewed throughout the piece. Along with the other national coverage as cited in my earlier comments, the feature articles about him in Writers Digest, his writing awards, his TV series and his New York Times bestseller, plus his authoring 23 books, the subject sufficiently meets notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you mention I've dealt with above, with the exception of Good Morning America -- and as for that, here's the entirety of its "coverage" of Phelps:

The horrific tale is now the subject of M. William Phelps' new true crime book, "Murder in the Heartland." He conducted interviews with Montgomery's ex-husband, children and mother, law enforcement officials, friends, relatives, and neighbors. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had worked a different shift than her husband ... "It was easier for her to manipulate him," Phelps said. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had researched how to do a Caesarean section on the Internet ... Phelps said that the prosecution might have a strong chance of proving premeditation... While in prison, Montgomery, Phelps said, has found God. She's found Jesus Christ," he said.

As before, none of this is about Phelps. EEng (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that is your mantra, but that is not the case. Good Morning America is about what he did to get to the story, and the feature stories are about how and why he became a writer. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the entirety of mentions, or quotations, of Phelps in Good Morning America are given in the block quote just above, and says nothing about "what he did to get the story". The "feature article" is, as already mentioned, found on a vanity-publisher's website (""get-published-sell-my-work") and is an interview; interviews are of zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject.

The almost complete lack of coverage of Phelps is reflected in the article, BTW, in the fact that, other than his name and where he lives, ~~and that he has a wife and three children,~~ it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about him -- it's essentially a list of publications and screen credits. At this point I think it best if we let other editors give their opinions. EEng (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Digest is not a "vanity-publisher's website." Look it up. It is a printed magazine that was established in 1920 as a how-to for freelance writers. It is sold on magazine racks nationally: "Writer's Digest is an American magazine aimed at beginning and established writers. It contains interviews, market listings, calls for manuscripts, and how-to articles. Writer's Digest is owned by F+W Media, which publishes the annual edition of Writer's Market, a guide containing a list of paying markets — magazines, publishing houses, and contests — as well as an index and tips for the beginning writers. The magazine is published eight times per year." Again, saying something is so does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, you're naive. But believe what you want. Anyway, interviews are still of zero notability value. Now be my guest and have the last word if you want, after which please can we just let other editors weigh in? EEng (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Naive"? Now you are being rude, which is uncalled for. Yes, please, let this end. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a Reuters article and Q&A (here's the article), dated 2012, of a lengthy interview with the subject and his TV series co-host. Reuters is a reliable third-party source that further establishes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted interviews have zero notability value, becuase they're not independent of the subject. In any event, this piece says nothing at all about Phelps himself, beyond "crime author M. William Phelps and criminal profiler John Kelly revisit unsolved serial-killer cases ... Phelps, a former consultant on "Dexter," has a personal stake: His own sister-in-law was murdered by a serial killer in 1996." That's it. This is just more evidence of the complete lack of available coverage of the subject. EEng (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response He meets WP:Bio, according to the guidelines, if his works have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," which they have, or if something he has created has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews, for which the TV series has. This is absolutely not a case of "complete lack of available coverage of the subject," as you continue to repeat regardless of the secondary sources presented along with new ones I have found since you started the AfD. By the way, you do not need to respond. I know what you are going to say. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond since it's not my goal to convince you, but others, and I don't want them misled your misstatements. There are, as AFAICS, two reviews cited in the article, each one paragraph long. [43][44] That's not, as the guideline you partially quote calls for...

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

"Articles" announcing that a series is coming don't count. EEng (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I reiterate so that "others are not misled by your misstatements" about coverage in USA Today, New York Daily News, Reuters, Writer's Digest magazine, etc. Phelps is regularly quoted about murder cases, which he is known for writing about in 23 books released by traditional publishing houses and talking about the cases on a national TV series. GNG is met, as demonstrated by multiple coverage in reliable sources, and the subject is notable. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And I reiterate so that 'others are not misled by your misstatements'", writing a lot of books on murder cases and "talking about the cases on a national TV series" are not coverage of him. And he's not, as you say, "regularly quoted" about the cases, except in the context of the WP:ROUTINE puffery one finds around the release of books and announcements of TV series. Every source you've pointed to above as constituting "coverage" I've refuted, in most cases by quoting in full the handful of passing mentions of Phelps each contains. First you say he meets GNG, then when that doesn't work it's AUTHOR, then BIO, and now it's back to GNG. In reality it's none of those.

Now that we've disposed of the no-notability Reuters interview, can we go back to awaiting comments from other editors, as agreed? EEng (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you describing the Reuters interview as "no-notability" does not make it so, just your opinion that appears to not be based on the guidelines. Let others chime in. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDb listings are persuasive all by themselves. But there are also writieups abouthim in major dailys like the Denver Post and the Hartford Courant. Reviews in significant outlets. This AFD is a slam-dunk KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entirety of mentions of Phelps in the Denver Post's "writeup about him":

The Investigation Discovery show "Dark Minds," hosted by true crime author M. William Phelps, is called "Road Paved to Murder" and begins at 7 p.m. ... Phelps also interviews a Denver Post reporter, criminal profiler John Kelly and a serial killer serving multiple life sentences who goes by the moniker "Raven."

Yup, that's a slam-dunk for sure. The Courant piece is indeed longer but, again, one puffy interview is hardly significant coverage. What else is there? EEng (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you applying, other than IDONTLIKEIT? My point is that there are so many reviews in RS, so many IMDb listings, and interviews in Writer's Digest, and write ups in major daily papers like the Hartford Courant already on the page that it is not necessary to go searching the way it ordinarily is for AFDs on authors. I'm sorry that the editorial judgment of a great newspaper line the Hartford Courant fails to meet your personal standards, but I fail to see what that has to do with WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews), policy standards that this writer sails past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in the interest of full disclosure EEng asked me to take a look at this, but bear in mind that I'm completely capable of making up my own mind on these matters. That out of the way, I have to agree that there's almost nothing here that's about the subject himself. This isn't a situation like we have with music, where the notability of albums is directly tied to that of the writer; completely non-notable people can produce notable books or TV material, it happens all the time. As an example see Autobiography of a Geisha; Masuda Sayo doesn't have her own biography because people don't comment on her (in her case she actively shunned such attention), they comment on her book. Same concept here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Authorship is an exact parallel to music composition. Writing a notable book or the script of a notable movie is what makes a writer notable. Even a single book (see: To Kill a Mockingbird) can make an author notable. see WP:AUTOR "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Masuda Sayo is unusual, nevertheless, she would sail past WP:AUTHOR (which is, as you probably already know, the same for all creative professionals (see: WP:CREATIVE) But in more routine cases, writing a number of books and movies that get respectful reviews and/or substantive press attention satisfies WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely possible for books to be notable even if the author is completely unknown, as a history guy by trade such things are quite routine. In any event, I don't believe WP:AUTHOR actually says a person is inherently notable if they've produced something notable; situations like these are exactly why it doesn't say that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, it's also totally beside the point. This AFD is about a writer of multiple films, multiple books, participant in multiple modestly successful TV shows, and written up in multiple RS places over many years. Some of the mentions are brief, but even these are often in articles about works of which he is an or the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOTNL, hate to ask, but why don't you take a few minutes to look at the various references in the article, to see just how superficial almost all of them are. With two or three exceptions they're not "reviews" but ROUTINE announcements, and even the reviews are paragraph-length. EEng (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is the crux of the matter here. None of the cited sources really discuss the author, and there's certainly no way that this sort of trivial coverage translates to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, profiles exist. Here are some: Hartford Courant: [45], [46], Writer's Digest: [47], Also this, from a publication that I am not familiar with [48] . fyi, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both discussed above. They are both interviews, and interviews have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject. EEng (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both? Surely you mean all three. only 2 of which are mentioned above, although User:The Blade of the Northern Lights aserted that there were "none" on the page. And you are wrong. "not independent of subject" WP:GNG "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Interviews and profiles in a major daily like the Hartford Courant, or a trade magazine like Writer's Digest are "independent of the subject" in fact, they are what establishes notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, in the Phelps case, notability is established not only by multiple interviews in RS, but by widespread coverage of his many true crime books (some of which is on the page), by hosting a TV series that has been renewed for several years and covered in multiple RS articles, and by the fact that several of his books have been made into movies and, according to RS news reports, others optioned for movie rights. Breadth as well as depth of coverage established notability here. User:Northamerica1000, it may be time to close this as keep despite or because of User:EEng dogged opposition, which began with a verifiably mistaken afd nom ("no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage") and has continued not only by recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly wiling to misstate reality re: coverage of Phelps,("None of the cited sources really discuss the author,"), but with broad misstatements of both reality of coverage of Phelps and of WP policy ("interviews (Hartford Courant, Writer's Digest) have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject")E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I based the nomination, and my comments, on the sources in the article plus what I found on a quick Google search. I think you better watch it with the "recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly willing to misstate reality" bullshit. How do you feel about that comment, The Blade of the Northern Lights? EEng (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, and take a look at the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, open all the sources, and see how many you can find that are actually about the subject of the article, and independent of him. EEng (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tho library holdings are not a formal criterion ,the';re indicative, because libraries buy on the basis of public interest plus reviews

Nathan Hale is in 771 libraries' "The devil's rooming house :" (on Amy Archer-Gilligan) is in 711' Murder in the heartland on Bobbie Jo Stinnett in 688; others in 544, 313, etc. These figures are characteristic of a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not contain any substantial reliable sources. Nakon 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Sources are all self-published, affiliated, or otherwise user generated, per WP:RS. I don't doubt the person exists and has written code, but we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the need for source code provided by Greythorne, there are now references to code he wrote. (You stated that maybe he may have written code, that looked like a request.)

Many linked references used as valid ones on the Fravia wiki also apply to Greythorne. He is mentioned in Fravia's writings often as gthorne in the 1990s and other sites. This should count for him as well. The 2600 article from 1998 listed in references called "Clampdown" should count as a book reference. The references to him on the web show a span of about 20 years or more in many places all over the net. The sites are not possibly affiliated other than that they are about the same topics - reverse engineering and cracking, which is why he is famous in those circles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldwyn (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never mentioned a need for source code. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many times his partners or friends mention him, nor how much code he wrote: Please see WP:Notability for an overview on notability. The emphasis is on reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject itself. User-generated sources like forums or chat-discussions are not reliable sources. Self-published sources or affiliated sources are not independent, and the ones here are of dubious reliability. Primary sources are to be used sparingly, and cannot be used to establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being merely being associated with a notable subject. Furthermore, we are assuming that this person, albeit operating under a pseudonym, is a real, living person, and thus the article must especially be in compliance with Biographies of living persons policy, which sets the bar even higher to avoid defamatory, incorrect, or otherwise poorly-sourced information that can have potentially serious real-world consequences, and third party self-published sources cannot be used to verify BLP information per WP:BLPSPS (otherwise anyone could make a Geocities webpage that states Greythorne is the greatest human of all time, a convicted felon, a Romanian mud-wrestler...). So lets review the links in "References": [49]: self-published by Fravia. [50]: self-published by anonymous, affiliated source. [51]: forum posts. [52]: Greythorne's Privacy Nexus: inherently non-independent. [53]: forum posts. [54] and [55]: more Fravia self-pubs. [56], all that can be verified from the source is Greythorne wrote a letter called "Clampdown" to $2600 Magazine, which would be a primary, affiliated source even it were a letter to the New York Times. [57]: translating a Greythorne tutorial into Spanish doesn't make it any less primary. [58]: Greythorne primary source. [59] and [60]: um, how are these self-published pages even directly relevant to Greythorne? [61]: Greythorne primary source. [62]: fuente primaria de Greythorne (si!) [63] :More primary source code by Greythorne. In short, on WIkipedia we don't care how many times a person's name appears on the internet, nor what their friends, colleagues, or moms think of them. We care about demonstrable significance to the world at large. If this person is notable, find a handful of reliable, non-afifliated sources with a reputation for fact-checking and integrity that clearly discusses Greythorne's significance. For all that is verifiable from the article, Greythorne is noteworthy only to Greytorne, Fravia, and a handful of hackers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to find proof of fame and contributions based on what you are asking for. Nothing more.

You asked how Greythorne was the original published of the translated-to-spanish version - Checking the link, it states they are 'Greythorne's Tutorials' translated - Other than the fact that I remember seeing them online in the past, you had to click the link to see that. I am trying to find more data for you, I hope that his organization (HCU) being written about in books (O'Reilly as mentioned for one) and being a topic of International Internet Security Conferences such as RevCon'06 (and '05) and others [see fravia's wiki for more] is enough. I and aparrently this caldwyn person are looking for data for you to satisfy what you are asking. Not sure how much is needed but maybe more people will try to help.

The sources (woodmann and other Fravia page mirrors) etc... are reliable, being that they are HOW the data was published (online) -- More importantly, they were the actual source used in the presentation at RevCon'06 by Fravia himself. Please stop disregarding real public sources. See the video proof here: https://archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=Fravia_Reversing_our_searching_habits_Power_searching_without_google -- every 'one minute' frame of the presentation is shown - pictures of the site itself, and the source is very NOT fake. It is publicized well as the real source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are unfamiliar with Fravia and HCU, and his sources are international (see his site for how he published info) and WHY Greythorne is one of the professors he talked about, as well as his partner, and put as a professor of HCU. I think you have made up your mind, but the proof is there. More proof of the online organization HCU added in the form of an O'Reilly book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued the sources aren't real, I am arguing they are inherently affiliated, unreliable (in terms of Wikipedia standards, again see WP:RS), and/or primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Excessive or exclusive use of these three types of sources impede Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. The O'Reilly book you mentioned is the first reference bearing a hint of a reliable, independent source, and assuming it actually discusses Greythorne (chapter or page numbers should be included to aid verification), may be evidence that this subject possibly meets notability guidelines (again, see WP:N, WP:BIO, and every blue link in my previous comments). I hold no ill-will towards the subject, and freely admit I am unfamiliar with him, as I am with most people, even those that have Wikipedia articles. My own opinions of the subject, same as yours, are irrelevant: we are dealing with policy here. Simply present more third-party sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, and all question will fade away. P.S. In any discussion, please post replies below the last comment, to maintain chronological flow. We read from top to bottom, not bottom-up. Also it is helpful to indent comments with one or more colons (:) to nest responses under their respective paragraph. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also shown you the accurate resource (the actual source, complete with video/photo proof) that shows that it is the real source for international conferences used in their conferences - that shows Greythorne when you actually read the source it shows. I would think that first hand by video would count... Not sure why that wouldn't honestly. I really hope that you consider that. Fravia being a similar famous person in the field stated on those documents how Greythorne is his brother and partner in this. Why is an internationally publicized conference material not valid but a book about it may be? I am really having trouble understanding your logic. I have even shown you proof that ORC is real, Fravia is real, and they mention him in partnership. Please consider it. Thanks for at least reading our postings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I am hoping, is that by finding all of Greythorne's collected works on the reverse engineering subject, which is NOT easy since he no longer has a web archive, that his name won't be lost in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, the publicized woodmann site resource, and the article in the book about ORC's lessons being required reading. What you don't seem to understand is I am finding those lessons, And Greythorne's name is all over them. Why do you think I have gone through all this trouble to show validation of the sources? I really hope you understand why all of this is important to me. I simply can't find most of these famous article without him splashed all over them. Doing a google search for "gthorne orc hcu" I found over 4000 entries. Not what you would get for Mariah Carey, but not everyone on wikipedia is even that 'found.' Even a decade or so late. That is why. I wish I had found this stuff a decade ago, before his main archive sites closed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the 4000 hits are reliable sources? I have no doubt whatsoever that Fravia, Greythorne, ORC, and HCU exist, and Fravia appears independently notable based on his article. However, verifiable existence does not equal notability, and notability is not inherited from being associated with notable entities. Barack Obama has said many nice things about his daughters, and they have even been covered in reliable press, but Malia Obama, for instance, still doesn't merit her own article as all press coverage is due to her relation to the President of the United States. Similarly, should it be found that Greythorne is not sufficiently notable on his own, appropriately-sourced information on him could plausibly be incorporated into Fravia, Old Red Cracker, or possibly even an +HCU article, i.e. a subject that is independently notable (significantly covered in multiple, third-party reliable sources). I hope you see how arguments like "his partner Fravia and some anonymous forum posts say he's really important", even if verifiable, do not come close to satisfying the General Notability Guideline, which is what this discussion hinges on. Some of the sources you've included so far might be appropriate to verify certain passages, but all the primary sources or self-published sources in the world don't count towards establishing independent notability. As an analogy, say my mother wins an Academy Award, and in her acceptance speech says "I owe all my success to my dear son Animalparty, the smartest guy I know". I still wouldn't merit an article, even if someone found every test I took, every essay I ever wrote, and every post on my Livejournal or Flickr as "proof" I am a notable person; and in the absence of reliable, independent sources I would be first in line to argue its deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am perfectly willing to accept that Greythorne was influential to an unspecified number of people, but if no significant, reliable, third-party coverage can be found, so be it! Wikipedia is not the place to construct an "oral history" composed entirely of primary sources and raw data (No original research). Furthermore it would be improper synthesis to state in essence: "HCU is notable. Greythorne was part of HCU. Therefore Greythorne is Notable." We as editors cannot make such inferences unless reliable secondary sources explicitly say so. If you want to firmly establish Greythorne's importance, or make sure his name isnt lost to history, do some real investigative work and get it published in a reputable peer-reviewed outlet first (where presumably experts would evaluate for accuracy, cherry-picking, undue promotion, and balance). Such a piece would thus constitute a secondary source, and would be suitable for a BLP reference. Note: a simple Google search produces a (non-RS) forum post in which Greythorne (apparently) reveals his real life identity, thus ever more the importance of adhering to BLP policy which includes erring on the presumption of privacy for the subject. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for admins or other participants, there are additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne), however any subsequent discussion should probably occur on this page, not the Talk page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way, way too promotional. Also, there seems to be very little available coverage about this person. He was apparently skilled and influential, but without some kind of coverage in reliable sources, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A hacking/cracking wiki on Wikia would probably be a better place. It's not easy for hackers to get mainstream coverage in the press, but it does happen. Could also be redirected to Old Red Cracker, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps National Names 2000 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. Do you have a reason for keeping? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BIO. Reams of internet cruft cited as sources, but nothing recognizable as a reliable source. Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. This is not something that needs to be handled through AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William J. McDonald[edit]

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

Appears to be shorter version of William Joseph McDonald Vycl1994 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support as creator with a redirect to William Joseph McDonald. Although this article is older, the other is fuller. ---14:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion is not persuasive because it invokes an evidently self-published source. Sandstein 19:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markélla Marína Konstantínou[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't find anything online, but some sources might be written in cyrillic. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person passes WP:GNG [64] Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but your source is not a reliable source conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 00:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability/WP:BIO and lacking reliable sources. If there are sources in her native language that is available and found, I am happy to reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nap-kelte[edit]

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

Show that I'm not sure how notable this is-has had no refs for years. The Hungarian wiki (which I just looked up even if I don't know it) has this linked to Nap TV. So maybe a redirect/merge? or just delete? Wgolf (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Karr[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GYMNAST MATThematical (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Liukin cup which is not an international competition (it is a level 10 competition which does not satisfy gymnastics notability). The only coverage I see on her is from a local paper, but using Maddie Karr instead of her full first name did reveal a mention in a piece from universal sports. I do feel this piece is WP:Routine as it only talks about her for a few sentences and strictly related to her performance in this event.[65] MATThematical (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2015 (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/2015 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, nor has she done anything to meet WP:NGYMNAST. She is listed as a junior by her national governing body. A search at FIG, the international governing body does not show an international license so it is unlikely that she has competed beyond the junior USA national level. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: There is no question that she has received coverage from major sources normally used to satisfy WP:GNG. NBC Universal Sports [even includes several quotes about her training] (edit: but is authored by "By Jo-Ann Barnas/USA Gymnastics" not an independent journalist and as talk points out below is actually "From USA Gymnastics Press Release"). In my opinion this coverage is WP:ROUTINE anyways but I could see others possibly disagreeing with that. It would be nice to get feedback from people at the WP:GYMNASTICS project, to see if there is any independent coverage we are missing. MATThematical (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken second !vote. You nominated the article for deletion, and your nomination is taken as a !vote to delete. As for the article, have a closer look at the credit, it's credited as "From USA Gymnastics Press Release". -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NGYMNAST. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Slammer (series 3)[edit]

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

I put up the first 2 seasons as a prod-from the look of it this could just either go to the main page of the show or just make a episode listing for all 3 seasons. Its just basically a brief episode listing with not much info. Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opinions are split numerically. The "delete" side puts forth WP:BLP1E, while the "keep" side argues that this is a list associated with a notable topic much like Family of Barack Obama. Both are at least comprehensible arguments, but only the "delete" argument has direct policy support, while the "keep" side is weakened by the last three opinions, which must be discounted because they do not address anything relevant to the policies and guidelines under discussion. This leads me to find, after considering the strength of the respective arguments, a consensus in favor of deletion. Sandstein 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsarnaev family[edit]

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

All of these are basically WP:BLP1E off their relationship to the bomber/s. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DEPTH. I am seeing a-lot of widespread coverage here involving the family so my opinion is to keep as these are not low-profile individuals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article originated as an article about both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It was decided to split the article so there was one for each brother, leaving the question of what to do with the related individuals. If someone has a better solution than creating an article for the family, I would be open to it. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. Low-profile individuals who have only been covered in the context of one event, did not play a substanial role in that event, and are likely to remain low-profile. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Same reason as Brian above. Consensus on the talk page for the original article was to split it in three; one for each brother and one to preserve the 'related individuals' section which used to be on the original article. all the content in question has been here for two years already without dispute. --ERAGON (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, if the community decides on deletion the Katherine Russel bit should be migrated into a footnote on Tamerlan's article.--ERAGON (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Katherine Russel should be preserved even if this article is deleted. See very recent story about her in March 2015 in New York Daily NewsABC News and others. werldwayd (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Delete. You know that these are living, non-notable relatives of notable people, right? It's fine to mention their existence in the notable person's article, to the extent relevant and encyclopedic to the subject's bio, but this article is totally inappropriate, a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. I ask the closing sysop to note that the BLP policy point here needs to carry the day, even if there's a large number of keep votes "because we have this sourced content and nowhere else to put it" or some other spurious rationale. Where's the article on the Unabomber's mom or Mohammed Atta's mom or Anders Breivik's mom? Exactly. -- Y not? 14:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the Unabomber's mom, but David Kaczynski has a reasonable article. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments. This family contained two murderers, and other members who received media attention when things were dug up on their religious views or non-terror related convictions. Obviously information on their upbringing should go on the articles of the murderers themselves, and relevant information on the widow to Tamerlan's article. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A three way split is a reasonable way to avoid duplicating material unnecessarily. The material will presumably be retained regardless (it most existed in the combined biography for a long time before the split) - the only question is the best way to organize it. Those arguing BLP1E are partially correct, but also partially wrong as this is not pretending to be a biography of an otherwise non-notable person but rather a collection of background information on family members. It is not unusual to handle not-too-notable family members in this fashion. See, for example, Family of Barack Obama which lists many living people notable only for being related to Obama. In other words, BLP1E generally doesn't apply to list articles (which is what this is). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. If any details about these relatives' lives are salient to the bombings or the trial, they can be included in the pages for those events.--132.236.216.223 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split - The family background portion is already included in the brothers' articles. The rest of it should go to individual pages. Theoretically they could be AfD'd once split; given [66] [67], but the lack of any independent articles about Ruslan Tsarni, I would expect only the females to be kept. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I honestly don't think much of the information on the female relatives is necessary. Any relevant info can be included in some other article related to the Tsarnaev brothers or the Boston attacks. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the family portrait lends a peek into the minds of the perps. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Keep if we have enough information on the other members of the family that is relevant. If not, delete. In fact, I agree with ThaddeusB, although I'm kind of fuzzy about the comparison between a governmental leader and an infamous terrorist, but whatever. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this information provides depth and is relevant. Merging this information would be difficult. Hshook (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied on request by anyone interested in working on sourcing and improving it. Sandstein 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional tanks[edit]

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

The list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are an absolutely massive number of fictional tanks, and the list would be excessively long. There has also not been any substantial coverage of fictional tanks as a concept, so the list is not encyclopedic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An indiscriminate list. Anything here should either be in Category:Fictional tanks, or else merged to the works of fiction where they originated. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is not a massive number of notable fictional tanks. If this article limits its scope to only what is notable then it could prove to be a very worthwhile venture. In any case it does not violate indiscriminate, and cannot be deleted on that grounds. It is clear that some effort has been put into the article thus far and it should be given a chance.

All the tanks that are notable enough to have articles are at Category:Fictional tanks already. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List with a clear inclusion criteria and there are notable entries to populate it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 sources. None of these are notable either.― Padenton|✉ 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources, content is largely in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 13:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, definitely a notable subject, but the article is not ready for main space. Needs sourcing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consenses. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Margaret Ross Alexander[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major school board member in a major city. Has endowed chair named for her. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any actually published material, even an abstract or finding list of what is in the Purdue special collections? It is well established we cannot keep articles based only on archival material to which there is no access outside that particular site. I would expect there are at least newspaper articles.? DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the abstract, historical note, and content list. 'Newspaper Clippings, 1964-1994' could have further sources discussing the subject. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She wasn't a school board member, she was an elected commissioner. I have reworked the article using multiple sources. I think she meets notability, with the additions and clarifications. She went on from school commissioner to tax review board member and served 19 years on the Historic Landmarks Foundation. Before she was school commissioner, she served 6 years on the mental health board. Was not able to discover why she has an endowed chair in Michigan, but the chair is clearly there and has been since the 1980s. DGG I posted a link for what is contained in the archive. SusunW (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She and her husband appear to have been major supporters of Purdue University. They had a son who was a baseball coach and athletics administrator there; that and a "lead gift" mean they got a baseball field named after them.[68] Probably the same sort of thing happened (a healthy contribution) with the history chair. Hardly enough for an article IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"School board member" is not an office that entitles somebody to a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOL. A school board member who then goes on to get herself elected to the mayoralty, a state legislature or the United States Congress would qualify for a Wikipedia article on that latter basis — but nobody, no matter how major the city, gets a Wikipedia article if being on a school board is the core of their notability. And this article, further, is not even close to being well-sourced enough to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Quis separabit? 17:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I do not go along with those who immediately rule against the "notability" of this lady. The sources we already have reveal important assets. Further work will no doubt reveal other important information. For the time being, we should certainly keep the article. I also see here that she was " president of the Indianapolis Board of School Commissioners from 1966-1970 during the period when desegregation, integration of the teaching staff, and busing was initiated." See also this which obviously points to notability.--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable individual in Indiana regional history, significant woman in Indiana history. Multiple reliable sources establish notability. Purdue University is, IMHO, certainly a RS. Individuals who hold elective office, influenced public policy and spent a lifetime in philanthrophy easily meet WP:GNG. Montanabw ^(talk)
Keep Clearly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking sufficient independent third-party reliable sources that provides the significant coverage needed to meet WP:BIO. - Mailer Diablo 23:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems there are adequate sources to warrant a minor article for this regionally important community leader. The Lafayette Journal & Courier has significant coverage while the Anna Margaret Ross Alexander Papers, 1955-1994 could be used to expand the article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per User:Gobonobo: I don't expect the article to expand, but there appears to be considerable conversation about her: and just because she isn't a subject of current conversation doesn't mean that she isn't notable within our notability requirements (we include a number of obscure historical figures as well), Sadads (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access Newspapers.com account and realized that given the time-frame, searching under Mrs. John might result in more article hits. I have found two additional sources. One confirms the school board plan for desegregation was developed during her tenure - while she was president, the other confirms that she was president and was recognized as woman of the year for being the only woman to serve on the school board. I think both of these articles establish her notability. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1898 Cowell[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1476 Cox[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Note - Not sure why we have 2 AFDs but I've copied the text from the 2nd nom to here and CSD'd the 2nd AFD.... I'm trying to save confusion believe it or not . –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1594 Danjon[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. While there are a few scholarly references that briefly mention or list the asteroid,[69] it has not received the significant coverage needed to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1442 Corvina[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The only study I could find of this one specifically [70] appears to have chosen it more or less arbitrarily as a comparison object in the same family as the much-more-notable 243 Ida. I don't think it's enough; for instance, it's not a significant enough object even to be mentioned in our article about the family it belongs to. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Colocolo[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1787 Chiny[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as well together with its External link. This is my first AfD !vote, so I have no idea if this is correct. There seem to be a lot of these post 1950 asteroids. Do they each warrant a separate, almost bare page? Would it be better to combine them in a slightly more elaborate page than List_of_minor_planets/1701–1800?45sixtyone (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the large majority of the asteroids, most of the information consists of orbital parameters and a few basic properties such as spectral type. If you turned that into a table, you'd essentially be reproducing the information on the JPL small body database in a more difficult to maintain form. Even the current list you have linked is of dubious usefulness. Praemonitus (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's weird; I get absolutely zero hits for this on Google scholar. Usually even the non-notable ones get a handful of low-quality results (papers mentioning them only as a line in a table, that sort of thing). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1571 Cesco[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Caupolican[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Sumeria[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dali's Llama[edit]

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

No indication of Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's what I found: An article from the Sun Runner, a review in Option, three articles in the Desert Sun ([71], [72], [73]), and an IMDB listing that indicates that three of the band's tracks were used on the soundtrack of the film Shoot the Hero. Not a major film, and the coverage is mainly local and insubstantial, so for now I'm going with delete, but may reconsider if other editors can add to these sources. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Dali's Llama are pioneers and important members of the trailblazers that fortified the "Desert Sound" (aka Desert Rock/Stoner Rock) that ultimately generated rock monsters like Queens of the Stoneage's Josh Homme and Kyuss' John Garcia. Anyone who would argue that, would be confronted by piles of evidence that have been part of documentaries published by many. Their MO is "Independent". They've been saying F...YOU' to corporate music since before being part of an 'Indie' label was cool. They live the principles of DIY to this day with their music supporting independent film makers such as Christian Sesma. To consider such contributions as invalid or unimportant, is more a reflection of a lack of knowledge and research in a music scene that has affected millions, perhaps even more widely accepted in Europe than their home town." - Lisa Morgan, CV Weekly (see article links below)

http://coachellavalleyweekly.com/dalis-llamas-wild-rumpus-anniversary-show/

http://coachellavalleyweekly.com/lo-sound-desert-a-silver-screen-rock-doc-on-the-desert-scene/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.60.24 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the "No indication of Notability" argument. As indicated by Lisa Morgan's submission Dali's Llama were key players in the development of the Desert Rock scene and remain stalwarts to this day, and whilst they may not have had the commercial success of others that does not detract from their importance to the scene. It's notable that a number of their more recent albums have been produced by Scott Reeder (from the seminal Kyuss) which is a clear indication of their standing on the scene. They also have a wider following outside of their home area, as a UK resident and fan I have their entire album collection and know of other fans in the UK, Belgium, Germany and Poland. The bands standing warrants an inclusion on LastFM http://www.last.fm/music/Dali's+Llama?ac= dali's llama (with over 1,200 listeners) As for the film Shoot The Hero this was more than a local film as suggested above, it is widely available and in the UK I was easily able to obtain and watch a copy via the Love Film service (now part of Amazon) - Rich Warne AKA MotorMoby — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorMoby (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dali's Llama are certainly a notable band on the Desert scene as they are listed as a notable band on this Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Desert_Scene. They are also referred to in this article on the origins of the desert scene http://coachellavalleyweekly.com/lo-sound-desert-a-silver-screen-rock-doc-on-the-desert-scene/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorMoby (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further supporting articles "Zach Huskey has been an integral player on the desert rock scene since the days of the generator parties in the late 1980s and early '90s" http://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/music/2014/06/30/zach-huskey-hick-ups-dunebilly/11817963/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorMoby (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dali's Llam 20 years of underground desert rock http://rminjtree.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/20-years-of-desert-rock-undergroundand.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorMoby (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dali's Llama are listed on BBC music website - surely this shows they are notable enough to have a Wiki listing http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/8584d357-a44c-4a86-a60e-7b8d2aec60b8

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creator blocked as a sockpuppet of Vamsiraj; deleting under CSD #G5. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh-e- Inteqam[edit]

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

Unsourced film with no info or anything really Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated; there is no article here. Must be expanded to keep. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged for deletion as a SPI report btw. Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. SPA anon IP 8.37.224.99 has repeatedly removed tags and content. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was G5 speedied. So I am closing this discussion as moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt Soorma[edit]

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

Film I can't find any info for at all! Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AFD needs input from Pakistani Wikipedians better able to find and offer sources for this pre-internet 1979 Punjabi film. Info is available in the Pakistan Film Magazine, but we need more sources, even if non-English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mason McCarter[edit]

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

Mundane coverage of a student athlete. Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the absence of reliable sources, a smerge seems inadvisable. Deor (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Is Magic: Premium[edit]

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

Non-notable, sourced solely to blogs. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:06, 12 April 2015 (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) 03:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sourced to blogs. Don't see anything that could be moved into the main Fighting is Magic article. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Fighting Is Magic. Does not need an own article. Gial Ackbar (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero secondary coverage—not even enough to justify the aforementioned redirect. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is not worthwhile to redirect on the basis of primary sources. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are unearthed. czar ⨹ 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saranne Bensusan[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:ARTIST Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete most of the sources are not indepth or unreliable . Fails WP:BIO.LibStar (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and lacks Reliable third party references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Schulman[edit]

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

Does not fulfill Notability standards for creative people. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but TNT. He appears in news sources as an "acclaimed artist" etc and his work was described as "important." Additionally he appears in a few books about ceramics. Not a lot, but a few. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Nakon 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Game Publishing[edit]

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

just a publisher, but they are not the original publisher of any of the three items listed. , just a subsequent owner of the rights who no longer holds them DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (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) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Eh, I'm sympathetic because the game has plenty of mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but none of the articles are in depth about the actual company and almost all of the remaining mentions are about IGP's relation with the MechWarrior franchise. It would seem, then, that IGP would work well integrated into a larger MechWarrior series article, which does not exist. The next best spot would be the aforementioned target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programs broadcast by Zee Bangla[edit]

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

Non needed list that is created by meatpuppets/sock puppets Wgolf (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this is fundamentally a list of notable television series that were originally broadcast on a particular notable TV channel. Hence a standard indexing list along with the others in Category:Lists of television series by network that should be cleaned up rather than deleted. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while there are many blue links, there is little to establish that those blue links are actually notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but those articles are not part of this nomination and so their notability is not up for discussion here. Even if they should ultimately be deleted, this list should have been nominated concurrently or afterward, not before. Which makes this at best premature. Though time and time again, I've seen deletion nominations for Indian TV series (or lists thereof) based on mere assertions of nonnotability that often prove unfounded, and are always contrary to our treatment of other large countries' TV series, but the discussions get little participation and achieve little substance. So I'm always concerned about WP:System bias in this area. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE AlbinoFerret 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? We need more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE to understand your reasoning. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I do not see anything close to consensus in this discussion. Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified), but there is no consensus whether these sources actually create sufficient notability. The votes are slightly skewed to the keep side due to canvassed users, but certainly there are also several long-time Wikipedia editors who are arguing keep. One can try again in a couple of years and see how the sourcing situation has changed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nim (programming language)[edit]

If you came here because another user asked you to, like here: http://forum.nim-lang.org/t/1075/1 or here: http://irclogs.nim-lang.org/31-03-2015.html, 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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The deletion log for this article shows that it has deleted twice at AfD in 2010 and 2013 and recreated and speedy deleted twice in 2013 and 2014 under the previous title, Nimrod (programming language). This version was declined as Draft:Nim (programming language) in 2014. Speedy deletion was declined this time based on new sources not present previously. I'm not sure which sources are new since I don't have access to the old version and it was never snapshotted at archive.org but all of the sources currently offered are WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNRELIABLE blogs or otherwise unsuitable. The only reliable source offered, a Dr. Dobbs article, only makes a trivial mention of the subject. Google searches for Nim and Nimrod turned up nothing helpful. Recommending WP:SALT. Msnicki (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete. Disclaimer: I'm the person who declined the speedy deletion. The source I was talking about was this Dr. Dobb's article, which covers the subject in detail. That should be enough to keep the article, in my opinion, although it would be nice to find some other sources as well. I do agree about the status of the other sources cited in the article, though - I think this is the first time I've seen a Wikipedia statement cited to an anonymous Slashdot poster... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that article is by Andreas Rumpf, who created the language, making it WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable for establishing notability under WP:GNG. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I agree that the other Dr. Dobbs article isn't enough for GNG, and I too have been unsuccessful at finding any other sources, so I've switched to "delete". This article can always be reinstated if/when there are reliable and independent sources available. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've described in greater detail below, here's a reliable, independent, significant (as required by WP:GNG), published secondary source from April 17, 2014: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 — jboyme (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that jboyme (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Looks like a four-sentence bulletpoint that came straight out of a press release, to me. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's bad point from someone on a years-long crusade. That Dr. Dobbs published the article indicates that they recognize the importance of the subject. Anyone they chose to write an article on the language would be an insider; that they chose the best, most qualified person to write the article is to be expected, and certainly is not a strike against notability. WP:Notable is a guideline, not a policy, and demands the use of common sense, not a rigid and archaic approach. Nim is clearly notable because it is widely mentioned and discussed in the places that innovative programming languages are discussed. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone they chose to write an article on the language would be an insider. If Nim is not yet being written about in reliable sources by non-insiders, then that means that it's not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. The article is exactly the kind of thing that we're looking for, but we're strict about requiring sources to be independent of the subject. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Changing !vote, to accept the fact that there is a user community and it has attracted some attention. Hopefully we can now concentrate on improving the article and references, to break out of this cycle of recreation/AfD. Delete per Mr. Stradivarius. I couldn't find any RS sources either. The test for programming languages seems to be whether they are actually being used by anyone other than the creators. If and when it's used to write actual software and has some RS sources then it could be reinstated. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The programming language is being used by many people other than the language creator (in this case Andreas Rumpf). Just take a look at http://3dicc.com/terf-news/2015/3/25/terf-rendering-power-upgrade-announced, http://nimio.us/, and of course Github https://github.com/search?l=nimrod&o=desc&q=stars%3A%3E=0&s=updated&type=Repositories -- dom96 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is harvard.edu a notable and reliable source? http://abel.harvard.edu/computing/nim/index.html? In addition to that there is a wide range of articles by independent bloggers about Nim, some even compare Nim to Rust (Rust is notable and I consider it on the same level as Nim, http://arthurtw.github.io/2015/01/12/quick-comparison-nim-vs-rust.html). There is also a very big presence on Rosetta Code: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nim -- dom96 (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think harvard.edu counts, no. If it was published by an established computer science professor then perhaps (see WP:USERGENERATED), but usually we look for things like articles in actual academic journals, or books, or news publications. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We currently pay developers in our company to use Nim for actual projects which are to be released over the course of the next year as (proprietary) software for financial analysis and consulting. We decided to use Nim for it's unique features (it even invented new forms of meta-programming). Also we found out about Nim because it is often mentioned in comparison to Rust (another fairly new language) and recognized by leading developers at Mozilla. What I write may not (yet) change the status of the article because there is no citable reference for my claim until we finish our product. I wanted to mention it anyway as I think that paying people for using a computer language is strong evidence for its relevance — oderwat ^talk) 11:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can also people other than the creators using Nim by questions tagged in Stack Overflow (here and here). Not a lot, many people ask questions on the IRC channel. Also, Nim is featured at learnxinyminutes.com, kinda a secondary source. Caroliano (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

We do not accept user-generated sources as evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learnxinyminutes is not a self published source. Outside contributions must submit a pull-request where there is some degree of peer review and finally must be accepted by the website/repository maintainers to feature in the page. The stackoverflow and irc channel link are simply further evidence that the language is used "by anyone other than the creators" that Margin1522 requested. Caroliano (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

The test for programming languages seems to be whether they are actually being used by anyone other than the creators. -- There is only one creator, but there certainly are many more than one user, so by your own criterion the language is notable. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your week keep. I would like to note that while there is one creator there is a very lively community (see freenode channel #nim FreenodeStats). Many of these community members contribute to Nim and, as a result, become a contributing author of the software. Having high numbers of developers actively joining an open source software project on a daily basis is in itself an indication of notoriety Itsmeront (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example of contributions to NIM by the community Video showing contributions over time Itsmeront (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep The company where I work, http://www.snapdisco.com, has recently switched to Nim for our internal software development. (We develop software for image processing and computer vision.) We initially developed our software in Python, which is webservice-friendly and has NumPy and SciPy for numerical computing, but we switched to Nim for its unique combination of coding expressiveness and runtime performance. Because Nim compiles to C, we can integrate our Nim code into our Python code as Python extension modules. We are not the language creators, but our software is proprietary. How can we prove that we are using Nim? (Disclaimers: 1. This Wikipedia account, from which I'm commenting, was created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD. 2. I have never edited/contributed to the Wikipedia page for Nim, so I have no vested interest there. 3. I have never committed any code to the Nim language, so I am not a "creator". 4. My company does use the Nim programming language. 5. I am an active member of the Nim user community.) — jboyme (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that jboyme (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Also, here's another independent, published source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 In this article from April 17, 2014, Nim(rod) is described as a language "on the rise" by an independent reporter, along with Clojure, Julia (programming language), OCaml (whoops, that's hardly a new language...) and Racket (programming language) (whoops, also not so new). But the section on Nim (slide 9) is clearly significant as required by WP:GNG ("more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") and the article is clearly an independent secondary source. — jboyme (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that jboyme (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
I don't believe that qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. It doesn't look to me like the author was doing any more than just copy-editing the primary source for space, the same way a news organization might copy edit a press release, also without adding their own interpretation or analysis. I don't see anything here that represents his own ideas. I certainly don't get the impression the author downloaded the compiler and tried it out as he would have to for an actual review. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that simply choosing to include Nim in this article, a stated list of languages "on the rise", is a representation of the author's own ideas: The idea that Nim is on the rise and (as the author suggests on the first slide) "could have meaningful impact on modern programming as it evolves". (The languages in the article are ordered alphabetically, so we can't read anything into Nim's position on slide 9.) I would argue that the facts the author chose to include in the terse description of Nim (such as not needing a VM or runtime) represent the author's interpretation of what is worthy about the language. For example, noting that Nim compiles down to C and thus doesn't need a VM or runtime, seems to me to be a comment on Nim's stated goal "without compromises on runtime efficiency". For about half the languages the author presents (eg, Ceylon, Clojure, Groovy, Hack), the language is described primarily in contrast to another more-widely-known language (often Java). This is also the case for the description of Nim (again, contrasting it with Java's need for the JVM). I agree that the article is not particularly well-written; but I still assert that the article (poorly-written as it is) does qualify as a WP:SECONDARY source. Finally, I disagree with the suggestion that it is necessary to download a compiler and try it out, before one can write a review about a language: One can review a language's syntax, stdlib API, or even design goals, for example. It's not necessary for the author to review the operation of the Nim compiler specifically, for the article to be a valid WP:SECONDARY source about the Nim language. — jboyme (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at it this way: We have a definition of and a prohibition against WP:OR. My take is that if an editor here were to create a similar summary of primary information, we would judge that as allowed because there's nothing original there, only a paraphrasing of the original source. A secondary source has to have some original thought to make it secondary and this article doesn't have that. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a valid source, and can be counted towards notability. Even with this, though, I don't think we yet have enough to meet WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". We have a paragraph here, and a short mention here. I think we need to see at least one more solid source before this passes the guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nim has [more than 400 repositories in github, authored by 55 different people. It is a project active since 2008, with over 200 forks and 88 people that at some point contributed some code to the compiler or standard library.

There are many articles about Nim in blogs and such:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8811132

Of course, they are self published and not peer reviewed, but many of them are posted to Hacker News and r/programming, openly discussed there, usually errors are pointed and the author accepts the feedback and correct the original article, etc. And it is those blog posts that normal people rely when they need to, for example, discover how to make a Nim library.

And everyone that is from outside Wikipedia are surprised to discover that Nim isn't considered notable enough for wikipedia (and those who aren't usually abandoned wikipedia editing due to those deletion sprees):

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2r06ej/what_is_special_about_nim/cnb8s9i

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6627318

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5564931&cid=47724581

Common sense indicates that Nim is notable. Caroliano (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

I looked at all three of those discussion pages and on every one of them, several people explained that we decide whether to keep an article based on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources and that there are no such sources supporting notability of this subject. We do not accept primary, self-published and unreliable sources including things like blogs. We also do not keep an article because there's another article on WP that you think is even worse. If you think it's worse, go ahead and nominate it for AfD. If you're right, we'll delete that one, too. All of this was explained in those very pages you offered so I have no idea why you think they support your !vote to keep. If you would like to have an article on Nim, all it takes is a couple short articles on the subject by people who are independent of the creator of the language offering their thoughts about it. Techie magazines are dying for content. Get them to publish your articles, then come back here and you can have your article here, no problem. Heck, we don't even where it's published as long as it's a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. It could be a hobbyist magazine or even TV Guide for all we care. But publish somewhere else, first. Convince them this an important subject and then you'll convince us. It's not that hard. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a WP:COMMON pledge. Open source projects that are not made by academics or big names in the industry, do not usually have peer reviewed articles or traditional press about them. It remembers me of Anki deletion. Despite already having tens of thousands blog and forum posts about it, and being THE reference for spaced repetition flashcard software (to the point it is difficult to find an independent blog post about that who won't cite Anki), it was almost deemed not notable by Wikipedia. Of course one or two shitty articles of the type "I tried anki for a day" (or not even that) in mainstream magazines are a infinitely more strong notability indicators than hundreds of much higher quality independent blog posts (/sarcasm). Nim right now is nowhere near the size of Anki userbase though.

I understand the need for solid and not easily abusable guidelines for notability and RS, but IMHO this is a case where common sense must also be weighted. I don't think wikipedia will become better by removing Nim's article. Yes, people in the links I posted explained the reason it was deleted, nonetheless there was many people from outside Nim that expressed the desire to see a Nim article here, and that it looked like just a big burocracy issue (see WP:BURO), that your post also seems to support. Also on those links, there are many people that stopped contributing to Wikipedia once the work they put editing a page about something they use and think is important was thrown in the trash when the article was deleted. This don't helps Wikipedia.

And I never said to keep this article because there are worse ones. I think it should be kept by it's own importance. Caroliano (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment Can this article be merged anywhere? If the consensus ends up that Nim is still not notable enough for a stand alone article per Wikipedia rules, I argue that it is still plenty notable enough for being in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Is there some "Lists of new programming languages from 2008" or a comparative table where it fits? If there is not, I think such a page should be created, as it would remove much attrition from deletion requests like this (it would not be a total deletion, more of a move), as well as having the redirect in place will prevent newbies from re-creating the article thinking Wikipedia is missing information (as already happened with Nim, as per one of my links). Less useless energy dispended across language deletions and more useful and organized content in Wikipedia. Seems like a win-win. Caroliano (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Yes, merge is always an option at AfD but it's helpful if you can identify where you'd like it merged. Msnicki (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search brought up List of programming languages by type#Imperative languages, but that would be more of a redirect target than a merge target. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I posted that comment exactly because I couldn't find somewhere it could be merged. Esoteric programming languages do have some less notable languages in the article itself, but there is no similar place for other types of languages. That is why I suggested some type of "programming language nursery" like "List of new programming languages from [year x]" where most languages can get a paragraph or two plus a info box, for example. I think that having a register of the diversity of programming languages is important for Wikipedia, even if individually they are not notable. And as I said, it would reduce the drama on programming language articles deletions, as they can turn into merges. Eventually they can get their own articles as they grow and accumulate references (or they may simply die and leaving their imprint). Caroliano (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep Please note that Nims inceasing popularity is mirrored by the fact that it is already contained in the Redmonk programming language rankings http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ and by the strongly increasing number of commits and contributors as shown by https://www.openhub.net/p/Nimrod . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.235.230 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 80.134.235.230 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete Per nom. @Caroliano: ycombinator, reddit, and slashdot are not reliable sources, so Nim's presence on them is irrelevant. ycombinator is a startup culture, they'll praise nearly anything. 400 repositories on github by 55 people, also irrelevant to the discussion here, is actually pretty low. 80.134.235.230 (talk) It's not listed in the Redmonk programming language rankings... ― Padenton|✉ 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to substantiate your objection that 400 repositories is actually pretty low. I would argue that you are absolutely wrong. Notice the top 50 languages here. Note number 49 on the list which currently has fewer than 400 repositories would currently be replaced by Nim based on more recent activity. It is also clear that you are not a programmer if you believe that ycombinator, reddit and slashdot are not essential locations for professional programmers. While there exists some startup culture, that is by no means the dominant culture. The dominant culture is of discovery and sharing information. Those sites, given their popularity, have become very valuable resources for solving difficult programming problems and sharing ideas and programming theory. In essence, they have become a more live version of the popular secondary sources you are looking for.Itsmeront (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Itsmeront: Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sources here need to be credible and reliable. If someone cited a ycombinator/reddit/slashdot post in a publication submitted to a peer-reviewed they would be laughed out of academia. They are not reputable sources. Even StackOverflow and Quora (both of which are far more reliable than the 3 of those) do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is on the chart, way down at the bottom left corner. I think I'm going to change my !vote to weak keep, due to the activity by the user community. The bar for programming languages has always been quite low. Generally all we require is that it be in use by someone other than the creators. And apparently it is, which is more than we could say of the others that have appeared here recently. But I really would like to encourage the users to get some respectable references. Currently the article is citing this, about the guy who couldn't get his routine to return an integer. That's not the kind of reference that shows notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made that comment a couple times, that all we generally require is that it be in use but that's not my experience. Per WP:NSOFT, It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. But in the footnote, it says, Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without using WP:Synthesis. Sourceforge, independent project wiki's, and other self-published sites are excluded from this definition, which I understand to mean you still to satisfy notability the old-fashioned way. The big reason I can see why some language AfDs might get closed as keep more often than they should is because they're often overrun with SPAs, who generally never understand how notability works here and, even when it's explained, always, always, always complain how unfair and bureaucratic we are because their language is so important. Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you are referring to refers to my post in which I say that I was able to get a barebones Android project in Nim working. A screenshot is included in my post but due to a forum bug does not currently show up. If you look at the rest of the forum thread you will see that the original author also states that he was able to get Nim working on Android. dom96 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is my belief that Wikipedia editors are being a bit too harsh on Nim. The guidelines regarding notability rules should not apply equally to every article topic, I think that programming languages in particular are less likely to be covered by notable tech sites. I am not familiar with a single notable website specifically dealing with programming news apart from Dr Dobbs (which is now dead but which has an article about Nim). I would also argue that the Dr Dobbs article is enough to establish notability, while it has been written by the author of Nim it must have had at least some validation done by Dr Dobbs authors. Surely a reputable source wouldn't publish false articles? dom96 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really interested in examples of tech sites that Nim should be published in to become notable. The lack of reply seems to suggest that none exist which reaffirms the arguments I made, I sincerely hope my comments don't get ignored in this debate. dom96 (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are Wikipedia articles about hundreds of programming languages. Many of them don't have any secondary sources. So why do you think Nim is not notable, but the following languages are? Obol (programming language), Picky (programming language), Little Interpreted Language, Seph (programming language), Halide (programming language), Roy (programming language), Plaid (programming language), Join-calculus (programming language), Objeck (programming language), Nemo (programming language), Ooc, Cl4 (programming language), Slave Programming Language, PureScript, Hope (programming language), MX Language, MCTRL, SmilScript, Wigzy, Mobl, Napier88 (I have just picked some random articles) --Trustable (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a programmer I find this language to uniquely possess a diverse set of useful features which for me make the language notable. The features are described in the first paragraph of its article. --IO Device (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITSUSEFUL? (Reminder to the closing admin: This is WP:NOTAVOTE.) Msnicki (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's notable for its features. Compare with MX Language which I believe is useful but evidently not notable. WP:WL rarely works.
(Reminder to the closing admin: It's easy for pushy users to have an undeclared conflict of interest with respect to programming languages.) --IO Device (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only reason that MX Language is still around is that no-one has noticed it up until now. I've nominated it for deletion too. Also, please note that making unsubstantiated allegations about other users is regarded as a personal attack, per WP:WIAPA #5. (And also, you should be aware that trying to substantiate this kind of allegation would likely violate the WP:OUTING policy.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CTFE alone should make Nim "notable", in a perfect world.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

Often, the size of developer base, and automatically-generated statistics about the project longevity and activity can be found on sites such as Ohloh (example for Foswiki - https://www.ohloh.net/projects/foswiki) or GitHub (example for MojoMojo - http://github.com/marcusramberg/mojomojo/). Most such software is not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", and most can never be. Discounting web reviews and blogs as references[1] is disconnected from reality in the case of the "paperless encyclopedia".

Blogs should be notable enough. There's plenty of blogposts about Nim(rod) metaprogramming. And it's not hard to google.

https://www.openhub.net/p/Nimrod

https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3ANimrod&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults

Nim is a powerful programming language. It would be a shame if Wikipedia didn't have an article about it. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep. I have no horse in this game, other than being having a long-standing interest in programming languages, major and minor. Nim is definitely in the latter category. When I come across something like a minor programming language, I want to come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Finding that the page has been deleted feels like bureaucracy and perhaps deletionism gone amok. There is clearly enough of a user community that Nim counts as a real programming language rather than just a toy. The article could definitely stand to be improved, but even now it's a lot better than no article. Raph Levien (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I learned about Nim here http://www.linux.org.ru/news/opensource/11171408

Nim is a very interesting programming language and people actually use it:

https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3ANimrod&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults

I don't understand the concept of "Wikipedia's Notability" but removing this article would be a loss for Wikipedia because Nim is a feature-rich programming language with a lovely syntax that people use and Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the language because Wikipedia editors somehow didn't find it notable enough. This whole discussion looks like trolling and it pains me. Even if Nim really isn't that popular it still does deserve a Wikipedia article about it because I'm sure a lot of people would find it very interesting.

Sorry about my English. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Here's me again. I'm still very upset.

If you are having a hard time finding information about Nim try to google "nimrod metaprogramming". Nim isn't the most popular language right now but its metaprogramming capabilities are quite "notable".

That's maybe my opinion but I'm certain that after the language is 1.0, which probably will happen soon, the language will be cited and discussed everywhere and the article will be revived again, which would be somewhat silly because it was removed so many times because reasons.

Nim is a well designed programming language. There are projects written in it. There's a community around the language. I personally like the language a lot and use it. But somehow Wikipedians think it's not worthy of Wikipedia. I don't understand this at all. It doesn't look unbiased. 93.88.130.208 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 93.88.130.208 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Weak Keep. The language itself is probably notable enough. But the current article's sources are very poor, so imo this is more a question of whether a verifiable article can be written, than an question of notability. Citing random Slashdot posts and reddit posts is about as good as not citing anything, since random Wikipedians could state their opinion just as well as random Slashdotters or Redditors can, but would still not constitute a proper citation. I would support keeping, but paring it down considerably to a stub that can be sourced to at least the good first-party sources (e.g. the manual and the Dr. Dobbs article). --Delirium (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep So we have:

A mention in a Dr. Dobbs article on programming languages in 2013 [74];
A Dr. Dobbs article written by the designer of the language [75];
Part of a not-too-serious list in InfoWorld [76];
It's recognized by GitHub as programming language.

I think this is exactly balancing on where I would draw the line of notability for a programming language (if the mention in the first article wasn't just a plug for the second article, the second Dr. Dobbs article was written by someone independent of the language, and the InfoWorld article a bit less obviously filler material, I'd probably have argued more strongly for a keep, but this is not the case). If kept only factual material should be included in the article (which apart form the "efficient, expressive, and elegant programming language" doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with the current article). The reddit/Slashdot citations can probably go, they are in most cases as good as having no citations. —Ruud 12:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find I'm in exact agreement with you about the existence of sources about the topic, and about the recognition on GitHub. My opinion is that this is still not quite enough to pass WP:GNG, however. I could be persuaded to switch to support with another solid source, but I haven't found anything so far (and I've been following all the links that others have posted to this discussion). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This language is in the gray area where there is some subjective and objective evidence that it's a bit more than a random toy project, but not not enough to make it clearly notable. In the end it doesn't really matter if we keep or delete it: articles about such languages always end up being so bland that no one will miss out on anything if we delete it, or be misled if we keep it. There are more important articles to be written and more worrisome cruft to be deleted. It's quite interesting to see that the articles where it matters the least if they are kept or deleted, always end up generating the most discussion. —Ruud 15:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the article is right next to the edge of being notable the subject is well known enough to a large enough audience that deletion of this article now would inevitable cause the article to be restored at a later date in the near future. And before someone says otherwise: This argument does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as the subject already has attention, it's just that a reliable source hasn't written about it yet. Despite saying that this is only a weak keep I believe that this AfD is an inappropriate use of most contributors time precisely because of the reason explained, but to each to his own. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that wikipedia editors have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to slashdot. While it is true that anyone can place an article on slasdot that does not mean it will make it to a full article and get ANY attention. You seem to be assuming that the links you are reading about Nim on slashdot are such submissions. They are not! Before the slashdot article appared for the general readers this article had to make it through firehose. More then 500 people voted up this article (this means 500 people + one person for every vote down) Slash Dot Nim Votes. Once the article appeard on slashdot proper it received over 520 comments. This is not your regular someone posted something to slashdot so you can just ignore it article. I challenge you to find an article on a programming language in slashdot proper (not firehose) that wikipedia would reject as not notable. I would aruge that if an article about a programming language makes it all the way through slashdot firehose, it SHOULD be notable enough for wikipedia. Especially since it seems obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming, which seems to follow different rules for notablity then other subjects (at least to us lowly professional programmers). Itsmeront (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Itsmeront: Slashdot does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, neither are user votes. As such, Nim's popularity on there is irrelevant to its notability. This is an encyclopedia, and the fact that a few people are fans of this obscure language is irrelevant to its notability, especially since the majority of keep votes on here came to this thread after being WP:CANVAS'ed (see links above), with the stated goal of stacking the votes. As for your claim that "it is obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming", Well done. You've made incorrect assumptions about everyone who disagrees with you and included a false premise as well.

Most of the people saying delete are actually in computer science and software engineering. We just know that Reddit, SlashDot, GitHub, and every other site that relies on user-submitted content, are not reliable sources, and do not satisfy WP:GNG for this article. Popularity != Notability. If this language had any actual notability,
One doesn't need to be a programmer to understand and correctly apply Wikipedia policies, though many active editors are indeed programmers. We're not here to discuss the programming language's merits, but its impact and whether there is significant coverage of it by reliable sources independent of people who would benefit from its popularity. ― Padenton|✉ 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton:Please explain why GitHub is not a reliable source. GitHub is the largest code hoster in the world and it has the largest community. Nim is recognized as a language on GitHub, which by itself is very notable, and Nim has a community on GitHub. How exactly is it not notable? If I follow your logic then: why even have any articles about any programming languages, all programs are user-generated anyway, let's remove all articles about programming. One does need to be a programmer to understand how notable a language is. Nim's presence on GitHub should at least prove that it's a real programming language and that people use the language. 93.88.130.208 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 93.88.130.208 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Go read this article: WP:RS, it explains our policy on reliable sources. Other programming language articles are about programming languages that have had an impact. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for promoting every piece of software that someone invents (See WP:NOTPROMOTION) ― Padenton|✉ 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: Wikipedia policies for establishing the notability of a programming language or such technology are simply insane, and I refuse to abide by such insanity, although it may have merit for other articles. Linking users to policies doesn't change the fact that the policies are stupid. --IO Device (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IO Device: Not sure what to tell you. ― Padenton|✉ 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: Sorry my IP is changed. I should probably register. I just want to make something clear first. I'm a random programmer from Russia and English isn't my first language. I did not contribute anything to Nim. I do not have any agenda. However I invested a month of my life into coding in Nim at my job, which is an animation studio. I was very impressed with Nim and especially its macros and compile time code execution. There aren't that many languages that can do this. Nim's metaprogramming capabilities are extremely noteworthy, and people really do find it fascinating https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nimrod+metaprogramming I personally find the language very interesting and I don't understand why an encyclopedia shouldn't have an article about the language. Nim's compiler itself is actually very notable: it's a large project, it's written in Nim, and there aren't many other languages that can match its features. Removal of this article would make Wikipedia worse and nothing else. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Please note that as wikipedes, we're kind of slow moving. The wannabe elitist nature of our site, and our concomitant efforts to preserve our pedestal in the public eye, together prevent us from diluting our content to what is substantiated by mere forks of forks. As a programmer, surely you understand - some pull requests must essentially be declined, and so must this article. We are driven by what we call WP:POLICY - this is enforced mercilessly by the WP:POLICE. Perhaps the future will bring A New Hope, but until then, the Wiki Empire and its Deletion System, with the capability to destroy an entire article, shall prevail. --IO Device (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~, that was a now existing requested article. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) (updated to keep based on {{openhub|nimrod|nimrod}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be sufficient evidence that it's notable. I;'m not at allan expert here, but it meets the ordinary requirements. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the only actual independent, reliable sources we have about the subject are a mention in Dr. Dobb's and a paragraph in InfoWorld. Apart from the other Dr. Dobb's article, which was written by the language creator and so does not count as independent, the only other arguments I have seen here are WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BIG, and of course WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's pretty clear that this topic doesn't pass WP:GNG as written - to keep it we would essentially have to create a new notability guideline for programming languages based on how many people use them on GitHub. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think it's important here to remember the spirit of the policies as well as the letter. We have notability guidelines for two reasons. One is that a notable topic is likely to have reliable sources, which is how we try to ensure that articles are reliable and verifiable. But the goal is the information. No matter how reliable the source, it's still a judgment call as to whether any particular piece of information is reliable or not. So the question is whether the information in this article is reliable. As of now, I think it's OK to say that this is a pretty conservative article with content that is easily verifiable from a variety of sources. So that's one. The second reason is to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't want people here promoting their latest app just because they want the world to know about it. This again is kind of a judgment call, but overall just being invited to contribute to Dr. Dobbs is an endorsement. It was included in the RedMonk chart, which (yes) is based on GitHub and Stack Overflow activity, but more activity is better than less. And we have well informed people arriving here at AfD to tell us directly why this language is significant. I've voted to delete most of the languages that come up here, and I would do the same for most of those that have been mentioned as OTHERSTUFF. But to come back to the basic question – would including this language be indiscriminate? – I think the answer is no. There are enough criteria that this one passes and others don't to say that it's notable enough. Barely, but notable enough that it's far from an obvious delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: a new notability guideline would be appreciated. It would however help if the guideline applies not only to programming languages, but to software in general. --IO Device (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IO Device: It already exists, it's at WP:NSOFT.― Padenton|✉ 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I would like to continue the argument that Slashdot is a reliable source for programming languages notability. Slashdot is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It is a publication, like a magazine that has a very large readership. While it allows readers to submit blogs, it provides editorial control, through both it's voting system, and it's comment section. Articles on Slashdot that make it through to a actual article about programming languages should be considered reliable secondary sources.

In addition, you have also made the argument that WP:BLOGS are not to be used as reliable secondary sources. Please note: 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' WB:BLOGS Goran Krampe is a noted expert in the field of Computer Languages [[77]] [[78]] [[79]] [[80]]. He is one of the original Guides for Alan Kay's Squeak Smalltalk, has worked with some of the best programmers in the workd. Based on your own guidelines his blogs may be considered, and I aruge, SHOULD, be considered reliable. [Goran Krampe's articles on Nim] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Duplicate "keep" stricken. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means we might consider an WP:SPS reliable for certain things. For example, we might accept an WP:SPS as acceptable for establishing certain facts about the subject, e.g., that Nim supports term rewriting macros and that they do whatever they do. It does not mean we accept that because an expert wrote about the subject in his blog that that makes the subject notable. Reliable for establishing facts is not the same as reliable for establishing notability. And the reason is that the essence of notability here on WP is not that anyone should take note of the subject, it's that they did and that they did it in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. A blog is never that. Msnicki (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki: This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the subject of new language development, expert analysis and review are critical to the development of a community, especially in open source projects. The fact that an expert in a field BLOGS about a language is in itself an indication of Notability. Do you not agree that gaining the attention of experts in the field, even if the field is small, is an indication of Notability? It seems to me that you expect books to be written about people writing new programming languages. I can't find one single book, nor can I find books reviewing new programming languages. What I can find is a number of blogs written by experts in the field links Notice that a large minority of Blogs reference RedMonk and that Nim is included in their rankings (something we have already pointed out many times). While I agree that in some cases blogs should not be considered an indication of Notability, the development of New Programming Languages should not be one of them. The fact that there is no NIM book published is only a temporary situation. I'm not sure if you have actually looked at the link | Sample of Nim Documentation. I understand that Andreas has already been approached to write one by a very reputable publisher. Again my argument is this. In situations where a very small group of experts exist in a given field, having the policy that published articles by secondary sources should exclude blogs raises the bar of notability excessively high. In Programming language development, which this article represents, the community is king. Gaining the attention of the front page of Slashdot, or being mentioned in an experts blog is the pinnacle of notability and is critical to gaining traction. Nim has done that but even more I would like to stress that ANY new programming language that is mentioned by a number of experts in the field on their blogs or makes it to the front page of slashdot should be considered notable. WP policies seem to make allowance for these types of exceptions. I am only arguing that they should be applied liberally to new programming languages Itsmeront (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Itsmeront: The problem is that you haven't provided any indication that these are experts in the field. The coverage also needs to be more than a mere mentioning of the language (As it is in the redmonk). WP:GNG defines the requirements quite well and precisely. I'm not sure if books would be enough either, unless its received citations. An O'Reilly book would certainly be more than enough for me, something else, I would need to look closer at the author and the books popularity in academia. What would be useful is papers that have been cited, but I found only 2, by the same author. WP policies do allow for exceptions to policy (You can read more here: WP:IAR), but the main thing here is consensus, and notability. It is not difficult to create a programming language. Most undergraduate Computer science programs all over the world have a course where you create a programming language. The problem, as you can probably guess, is that a lot of people want to create articles for their work in order to promote it, and read more here: WP:WHYN. ― Padenton|✉ 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton:Please see the the links to expert qualifications above, posted previously in this thread.

Weak Keep borderline GNG, was WP:TOOSOON, now borderline/WASTOOSOON, so falling back on IAR and 99BOTTLES. (came here independently) Widefox; talk 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a couple of essays and a failed guideline that help (somewhat): WP:NSOFT and WP:99BOTTLES, Wikipedia:Software notability . This passes 99BOTTLES [81] Widefox; talk 09:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: 99bottles is an essay on non-notability, it doesn't grant notability. The 99 bottles site allows anyone to contribute to it. I can write a new language tomorrow and submit a 99bottles to the site the next day. Furthermore, this is what, the 5th time 99BOTTLES has been used in any discussion? ― Padenton|✉ 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: Yes, I said it's an essay, and NSOFT is not a notability guideline as implied above, but as I said, also an essay. WP:IAR is the policy "that all editors should normally follow", WP:N is the guideline "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I believe pertinent here, others may agree or not. Widefox; talk 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox:Okay, fair enough. Do you have any reasons why Nimrod should be excepted from the notability guideline? ― Padenton|✉ 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now called Nim. Yes, it improves the encyclopaedia which is what we're here for. I appreciate David Eppstein's judgement that it fails the wording and somewhat spirit of notability. The sticking point here is the non-independence of the Dr Dobb's source. This AfD should renew an effort to produce a software notability guideline. In its absence, there's no axiomatic comfort blanket. Widefox; talk 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Comment: This AfD was brought to my attention by Padenton after I undid a deletion-sorting edit of his on a different programming-language AfD, but I would have probably seen it anyway via the Computing deletion-sorting list.) Still has zero attention from programming language researchers: I could find nothing on it in Google scholar. I was on the delete side of the 2013 AfD with the comment "The article differs significantly from the one that was deleted in 2010, but provides no more evidence of notability than that one did, nor can I find any myself." I don't think anything has changed since then; the sources are still all unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thank you for your comments. I would like to make the point that articles in Google Scholar are not an absolute indication of notarietiy. I have been making the argument that researches of new programming languages do not necessarily write scholarly research papers on new languages, but do however write articles in blogs and have conversations with peers, in comments, in places like slashdot and reddit. A good example is [Puppet]. I was able to find a single article on Google Scholar [Article] that is not even really about the software. You may say that proves your point one article but notice that for a programming language this popular and as useful as Puppet (Wikipedia uses it: [link] I would argue that finding only one article is an indication that your contention that notability requires articles referenced in Google Scholar is false. I have argued that people interested in, and experts in language development, have shown interest in Nim and the article here should stay. Itsmeront (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

I completely agree that academic sources are not the only way for a programming language to be notable. But I'm not convinced by the non-academic sources I've seen so far, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.heard about nimrod here->http://www.nerds2nerds.com/?p=519 (a programming related podcast in Bulgarian and not sure if it can be considered as notable source but anyway...) and caught my interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.57.87 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and apply strong creation protection. I am from the Nim community and feel like I have constructive input here, but feel free to delete this if it's not in line with this discussion's standards. We cannot expect Wikipedia to bend its content standards for this article, and from the discussion on this page that standard seems to be that the article needs to cite academic sources and people are having a hard time finding academic sources to cite here. If that is the standard then I'll argue that this page will never be able to meet that standard, because due to Nim's properties it is unlikely to ever be used seriously in an academic environment. In light of that I recommend Delete and apply strong creation protection as there is no use in recreating this page in the future since the content standards can never be met. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't need to be academic - they just need to pass Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. For example, news articles on tech news sites would do nicely, as would books with titles like "Nim for Dummies". (It doesn't need to be the whole book, either - a page or two would be enough.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... If the sources don't need to be academic then the page may be able to meet Wikipedia's standards at some point in the future. I'm keeping with my vote for now though. Nim currently has a lot of content published about it, but it's all self-published. For instance, Andrea Ferretti wrote a neutral Nim vs Rust comparison at https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/, but it's self-published and thus unusable as a source. Andreas Rumpf gave a presentation at StrangeLoop about Nim and why its meta programming capabilities are important (available at http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod), which means that someone at StrangeLoop looked over his presentation and decided it was notable enough for a talk. However, Andreas Rumpf is the creator of Nim so this source cannot be used as well because it violates viewpoint neutrality. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to bring attention to a somewhat urgent issue. The current page was invalidly copy-paste restored from the draft article Draft:Nim (programming language). I've elaborated and put more details on the article talk page: Talk:Nim_(programming_language)#Invalid_restore_from_draft. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not too bad if the closing admin considers history merges as challenge: Before 2015-02-17 the relevant history is in the old article (=draft), then that was copied wholesale to the new page as shown in your diff replacing the new stub, and the relevant editing continued on the new page. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight overlap between the copy-and-paste move, so a history merge wouldn't be appropriate (that would leave Gregh3285's earliest revisions to the current article with nowhere to go). See WP:PV for the general principle. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Nim for the first time on the Rosetta Code site tonight. I was impressed by its conciseness, so I decided to so see what, if anything, Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was please to find a very quick overview, an indication of possible spheres of utility and a direction to further sites. I am informed by the notices that the article relies overly on primary sources that the article in not perfect and that this computer language currently has minority interest. Well, yes. Wikipedia is a dynamic site and will always contain some articles of that sort by its very nature. However I am utterly bewildered why anyone should wish to remove the article because it does not fulfil perhaps overly stringent guidelines for citations. Are you sure you're actually trying to inform people are are you just trying to stand in judgment over what constitutes a notable citation. It's the strength of Wikipedia that an article on Nim can appear, albeit imperfectly. Nim does not and will quite probably not appear in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the USP of Wikipedia that it appears here. 188.29.80.41 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (I'm a fairly regular user of Wikipedia who does not wish to get embroiled in debates such as these).[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

Keep. Per Margin1522's comment Shabidoo | Talk 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a non admin closure for this AfD to try to lightened the load for admins stating:

The result was no consensus. Due to the controversial nature of the debate I have included a note. The arguments put for by dom96, Delirium, Erik.Bjareholt, Itsmeront suggest that the subject passes GNG based on sources such as but not limited to, Infoworld, Dr. Dobbs, and others. Those favoring deletion believe these sources are not sufficient and the article require additional sourcing. There appears to be a lack of consensus. I am not an admin, so reverting if contested is not an issue.

It had been opened for nearly a month this no comment for a week. @Padenton: has contested this close so admin intervention is required. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been a bit lazy regarding this, given that I am the one who posted the not a vote tag. I have now tagged those I suspect are most likely to be the canvassed users. I tagged users based on their activity aside from Nim (programming language). The links to where they were canvassed are in the header above. There were additional locations in the IRC logs where it was done as well, but I didn't find any useful information there as to who found out from there. I do not envy the admin that closes this and has to drudge through the marshes on this. Note that while I have tagged 6/7, there are other keep and weak keep arguments, including some that were indeed based on policy. Some are by experienced editors, some are by inexperienced editors which I did not feel comfortable assuming as canvassed. ― Padenton|✉ 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of consensus based on strong policy for delete vs IAR / borderline GNG, userify may be another option (to the seemingly obvious no-consensus). Widefox; talk 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, userify is not and never was an option for this article. That would for all intents and purposes be akin to deletion. --IO Device (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this article isn't worthy of being in the main namespace, then just delete it. Half-measures like this aren't good for anyone. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite strenuous efforts the sources to support notability simply aren't there. The article cites an array of unreliable and obviously primary sources (GitHub, slashdot, reddit, blogs, etc). The only ones which look more respectable are [82] and [83] and since both were written by the creator of the language they can't be considered completely independent of the subject. I don't think the sources presented here are much more impressive. [84] and [85] are obviously trivial mentions. [86] is a bit better but we can't base notability on what amounts to one slide in a presentation.
We also have various other arguments, but none is consistent with our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether people think that this programming language is interesting, whether it is used by people, or whether it is recognised by someone as a language unless it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Someone argued above that there is some kind of systematic bias against availability of reliable sources on this subject. I think the exact opposite is true: Wikipedians tend to be interested in technology and the open-source movement, and tend to prefer sources which are available for free on the internet. An open-source programming language is exactly the link of area where I would expect a particularly exhaustive search of the available sources. Hut 8.5 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really convinced by the SPA keep votes who were canvassed. I think it really fails GNG and it cites a lot of sources that aren't really reliable anyway. The deleters above have made a much more convincing argument. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is a result of canvassing in #wikipedia-en, and must be discounted for the same reasons noted in the comment. Or are we saying the canvassing has been unbiased? --IO Device (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you charge canvassing, you need to provide a link to the diff, please. Msnicki (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was someone came into IRC discussing this AFD, but in fact, they were more for supporting keeping of this article. Indeed, I was notified, which is permitted, but not canvassed, because that implies an inclination to make editors vote a certain way. No one asked me to comment in favor of delete on this AFD. I simply saw it being discussed and decided to voice my 2cents. I did not participate in the IRC discussion, I just saw it as I was going about my day. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, canvassing is often appropriate. In fact, any post on a noticeboard fits the definition of 'canvassing.' The reason the posting on the nim irc is inappropriate canvassing is that it was both off-wiki (see 'stealth canvassing') and a biased audience (see 'vote stacking'). We can argue whether or not the posting of it on the official wikipedia IRC is inappropriate stealth canvassing, but the nim IRC is certainly more of a violator on this front than the official wikipedia IRC due to its lack of transparency. I do concede that the message in the nim IRC is not a biased message (not 'campaigning') as the forum post originally was, though there were other postings to that IRC in the logs, but as stated, it has other issues transparency-wise and audience-wise. However, I did not see the message in #wikipedia-en. If it was in some way arguing for one view or another, that we can talk about. ― Padenton|✉ 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice attempt at spinning things to suit you. But make no mistake, your post is one of a selfish hypocrite, and this whole page is nothing short of an embarrassment. The day of Wikipedia are limited; it won't be long before it is surpassed by an automatedly-written alternative. Just you wait. --IO Device (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No spin here. You're welcome to read it yourself. As for an automated Wikipedia replacement, speaking as an AI student, I find that highly doubtful. ― Padenton|✉ 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hut 8.5. The sources are trivial, or not independent, or run-of-the-mill fluff. Reyk _YO! 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very simply this language has come to my attention. I am not a follower of blogs, tweet, ... social media etc. I do not expect to see an article in the New York Times or Washington Post regarding this language in the next 10 years. I come to wikipedia to learn about things. It would be a shame if I could not find out about this here. I think it should remain. I do not post often which in some opinions diminishes the weight of my words, but please consider I have decided to expend some of my precious time for this. brucekg (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)brucekg[reply]
Delete. Whilst well-referenced at first glance, the citations are primarily to user-generated content such as Reddit, Nim's own website, and other unreliable sources. I am also disappointed at the apparent meat-puppetry/vote-stacking on this debate. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I would argue that if OSCON has found Nim notable so should wikipedia. OSCON 2015. Andreas has been invited to speak at a very popular convention. We have continually showed the editors that the references are expert reviews of a notable programming language WB:BLOGS which can be considered since the authors are experts. We have shown that a news blog with editorial control has featured Nim WP:NEWSBLOG, we have shown that Nim is extremely popular by citing github stats and inclusion on RedMonk. You have waved your hands and turned up your nose or called it fluff but you have not answered why these editoritial policies should not be applied. They clearly show that Nim is notable. Itsmeront (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per person, please. You've already !voted. Msnicki (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His 3rd vote in fact. ― Padenton|✉ 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, if only because of the Dr. Dobbs source. I know it's written by the language creator, but I still feel it's good enough as it has been published by an independent publication who obviously decided it was important or notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If the list's creator (or anyone else) wants the thing userfied or draftified, a request on my talk page will get it done. Deor (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of works titled as "cycles"[edit]

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

Vague definition of what the subject is. What a "cycle" is in the first place isn't exactly clear, and our article Literary cycle doesn't help much, and neither does the related List of literary cycles. I do not believe that scholarship uses "cycle" as a technical term, and "titled as 'cycles'" makes it even worse. In other words, what is or isn't called a cycle (and by whom?) is arbitrary. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Draftify until the article creator (or someone else) gets more of a clue where such information really belongs, how to present it, what articles to include in it, and, if it merits an article of its own, what to title it. The article creator may require mentorship. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are scholarly papers on the topic of cycles such as The Structure of a Literary Cycle, Transnarrative Characters and Literary Cycles and Cycles of Influence: Fiction, Folktale, Theory. The page in question looks like it should be merged with the list of literary cycles and that's not done by deletion. See also Epic Cycle and category:Epic Cycle, which the OED gives as the starting point for this concept: "cycle, n. A series of poems or prose romances, collected round or relating to a central event or epoch of mythic history and forming a continuous narrative; as the Arthurian cycle. Originally used in the Epic cycle [Greek ὁ (ἐπικὸς) κύκλος] , the series of epic poems written by later poets (Cyclic poets) to complete Homer, and presenting (with the Iliad and Odyssey) a continuous history of the Trojan war and of all the heroes engaged in it."Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions for renaming? "titled as cycles" is a bit...unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, Colonel, I don't get it. Inheritance Cycle is a cycle because...who calls it that? The publisher, I suppose, and the fan club. But why isn't Lord of the Rings a cycle? Or Known Space? I know that the Epic Cycle is called Epic Cycle, but that has a couple of thousand years of history behind it, and really it's just a name. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lord of the Rings is a particular story. The cycle in that case is the more general body of work, including The Hobbit and Silmarillion, which some refer to as the "Middle Earth cycle". In science fiction, it's more fitting to talk of a universe but some do talk of the "Stars Wars cycle". Modern comics seem to take these concepts to the limit, with their parallel universes in which they endlessly recycle the archetypal stories of Batman, Superman, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of literary cycles is difficult enough already, if only because, for instance "Cycle of Rome" has only one single hit in JSTOR--it's simply not a very happening term, Matter of Rome is. Those terms aren't easily interchangeable, since "Epic Cycle" means a group of works in Classical literature related to the Trojan War, but "Matter of Troy" is medieval material. That's precisely the problem here: "cycle" is really just a word, not a very well-defined technical term--never mind that in our article under discussion it really doesn't mean anything at all. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- though a "cycle" has a specific meaning in literary academia, it's pretty clear that many fictional works just use the word as an affectation with little or no actual sense behind it. That means this list is probably no more sensible than List of works titled as "stories". Reyk _YO! 13:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while cycle may have a specific meaning, a list that is simply works that someone has chosen to title using the term is pointless. LadyofShalott 16:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Drafity to give the article creator more time to work on the article. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above deletes. Article creator is free to get a copy of the deleted article to work on it, or make a copy now. Not that there is much there. Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robotech Armed Forces[edit]

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

Very long and detailed plot summary lacking in any third party sources or evidence of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete The article is poorly written and has problems. but the subject is a notable part of a notable thing. It can be improved and doesn't have to be deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any article "can be improved", but the last major content change was more than five years ago. Almost the entire article is plot, failing WP:Plot, part of Wikipedia policy on content. It's one of many Robotech articles that is fan writing and not encyclopaedic content. There is no doubt that the series itself is notable, but that does not give every fictional aspect of it the same notability. The likelyhood of the article being improved sufficiently enough to solve it's issues is very low. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability isn't determined by article quality, some articles are not notable and once improved won't be any more notable. I see this as a notable topic, there's no deadline it might suck four years but doesn't have to suck forever. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for the explanation of why it's a notable topic outside of it existing as part of an actual notable topic - notability isn't inherited. I'm not suggestion notability is determined by quality i'm suggesting it fails on both points separately. Quality usually isn't a deletion reason, but consisting of nothing but plot summary and original research/user opinion is. As for no deadline, again that's a quality thing not applicable with notability or policy arguments.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again this can be transferred to wikia, I am not seeing the sources needed for notability. Oh and on the "but the subject is a notable part of a notable thing" please see WP:NOTINHERITED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessively lengthy in-universe plot summary with extremely poor sourcing (mostly to the work of fiction itself). No indication that this can be cleaned up to meet any sort of inclusion criterion, or of any potential merge target that would be improved by including any of this stuff. Reyk _YO! 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lets see if anything changes, these three sources [87], Cinema Blend, and this [88] covers the subject. This sources is secondary published source which covers the subject significantly. On top of this I am not see a valid criteria for deletion. Excessively lengthy, which I have shortened, is a call for clean up lacking in any third party sources requires these sources to be added, not deleted, this just barely passes by the hair. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the cleanup is neither the sole reason for nomination nor the main issue. However long plot summary can be a justification for deletion because of policy WP:NOTPLOT. However notability is the biggest issue. Your cinema blend link provides no evidence of the notability of the plot summary covered in the article. No one has arguing Robotech is notable or not, but rather all of the plot sumamries and character/mecha detail. Cinema Blend are more concerned with the announcement and history, so I don't see how that helps the article. Robototech Military Organisations does not appear to be a proper book, and is published by a publisher well known for packing wiki articles into "books" that separates it from a legitimate publisher. I also thinks it's possible that the Mark Hamil book falls into a similar category, it's a stretch to suggest a proper book summarising the roles of someone such as Mark Hamil would really dedicate that much space to quoting plot summary for a random voice role.

I also have to say that so far your actions over this afd and its blizzare non admin closure as no consensus was misguided and although you have graciously reopened it, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues with the article and dealing with it. As you claim on your talk page to not understand the rationale for deletion all of these actions are pretty strange to say the least. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Mark Hamill book is also repackaged Wiki content. Says so on one of the introductory pages. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing the story revolves around this, I placed the info behind the REF and the Robotech Armed Forces in the lead section of List of Robotech characters. As for the rest of the information, the reader can go through the character list just like every other series that has an extended plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft (i.e., only plot summary written in an in-universe style), not suited to Wikipedia. Even if notable, which is not apparent, would need a 100% rewrite. Sandstein 21:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knowledgekid87 that is not correct Sandstein asked for a clean up to remove cruft I found an additional source Kotaku and found Jclemens's and Bryce Carmony's argument compelling enought. 98.110.16.169 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAfter a lot of searching I think the best thing for the content and readers of this content would be to export this to RoboTechWikia there's nothing wrong with depth in coverage but Wikipedia isn't the best home for it. I think it'll get more traffic and use at Wikia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is how every AfD should take place. I feel now there is a clear consensus to delete and our goal it to drive to one side or the other, now it has clearly happened. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a laugh? First you close it as no consensus when there already was one to delete, then lept to the articles defence based on shoddy sources and a misunderstanding of the issues, now you argue to delete it because someone else changed their mind and have the gall to say this is how afd's should work? You've made a complete mockery of the process. I can respect Bryce's change of opinion but on the other hand you've made the process much more complicated and drawn out than necessary. Nothing has changed in any of the arguments made but you've instantly changed your mind because he has. I can accept people changing their minds but in this case the history tells a very peculiar story. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, breaking down the argument prior to new arguments was a no consensus. Poor sourcing can be corrected excessive detail can be removed, also to invoking WP:PRESERVE, verifiable, NPOV, NOR material should be redirected to have history intact. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing can only be corrected if suitable sources exist, and it's up to those defending the article to show them. The consensus prior to your NAC was clearly to delete. Reyk _YO! 11:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is sourcing, it would really help if there were sources out there that talk about the creation and conception for starters. We need third party non self published sources that don't mirror Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated sources exist Kotaku, Cinema Blend, [89]. I did not come to the conclusion without research and attempted to avoid a supervote. A two to one consensus is not clear, more discussion maybe necessary. One side suggested excessive information and additional sourcing required, at the time the other side believed those were not grounds for deletion, but clean up resulting in a lack of consensus. AfD was opened for three weeks with little discussion. Now that more detailed discussion has taken place with the AfD reopened we can move forward as a clear consensus appears to have been established. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No independent sources, and parent article deleted. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Reich (album)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NALBUMS. Jbh (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure what I'm supposed to add to the above. The album was reviewed in a few personal blogs, but no coverage can be found from reliable third-party sources. No way a significant article on this topic could be written an pass the demands of Verifiability. see above. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 10:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable Dethcentrik album with third-party reviews. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - ~~— BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Jbh (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my contributions-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian: Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be specific WP:NALBUMS requires significant non-trivial coverage in RS. Having the album chart on a national chart (in the US that is one based on Nielson's Soundscan), be nominated for a major award (ie Grammy or equivalent), etc. One review is not significant coverage. Jbh (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dethcentrik deleted at AfD, Delete CSD A9 Jbh (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fadil[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR. The only references in the article are to IMDB, where his bio was written by one Tony Fadil. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Lacking third-party reliable sources that affords any significant coverage. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Barney Bean Show[edit]

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

Obscure local show with no refs at all that I can find. Wgolf (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. vindy.com is The Vindicator. That link doesn't look like it's a reliable source, but it actually is. But there's precious little on Google about this show. There may be offline coverage, but it looks like it will probably just be as similarly local as the existing citations, which are more about the performer than the show. I'm willing to cut the sources a bit of slack as far as reliability goes, but there isn't enough non-local, significant coverage. If anyone does locate such sources, then the article can be recreated. An alternative to deletion would be to redirect it to WYTV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks[edit]

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

The entire article is based on WP:OR with only an allusion to one scholar who doesn't appear to meet with any criteria suggesting that he's notable or peer reviewed (i.e., he has pet theories and has written a paper on the subject).

I fail to see how this article should remain outside of its appeal as being a number of variants on WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSINTERESTING. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't make it clear which scholar you are referring to above (the article has only a single footnote but lists several references), but even if what you are saying would be true or relevant, a quick look at the other language wikipedias (such as the German or Swedish) show that there are additional publications by other scholars dealing with the saga (the ones by Henrik Schück in the Swedish article, for instance). --Hegvald (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Considering the fact that there's only one paper cited for the entire article, I couldn't be talking about anyone other than Alaric Hall as I've indicated on the article's talk page here. The article was tagged for additional citations for verification in September of 2013, but there's been no progress in improving the verifiability of the bulk of the content through attribution to secondary sources. A "References" list is of no value unless these references are cited in the body of the article as the article content may be virtually completely WP:OR. All the references list addresses is the fact that the work exists, not that Wikipedia's entry isn't someone's POV fabrication. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your issue exactly, that there are some details that you find dubious or that the topic is not worthy of a Wikipedia article? As for Hall, I commented on the talk page. --Hegvald (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there are no citations from reliable sources other than one questionable source (and only for a couple of statements) within the entire body of the article. I've had this article on my watchlist for a few years and have seen various additions and subtractions to the content which cannot be verified one way or the other, the most recent being here. To be honest, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no way of establishing what is OR and what is not. There's nothing preventing non-English sources being used so long as they are reliable and verifiable yet, every time I've communicated with anyone contributing to the article, I am assured that that contributor intends to develop the article providing sources. It hasn't happened as yet.

Ultimately, the existence of the saga is verifiable and possibly/probably meets GNG. The content of the article, however, does not satisfy any criteria other than OR. If the article is to remain per GNG, it needs to be cut back down to a stub and developed from scratch. While I'm familiar with the article content, the subject matter is not in my area of expertise... and the article content, in itself, reads as OR with nothing to substantiate any of the claims in it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment taken from WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As an even prefunctory internet search brings up a no. of texts talking of this saga and alluding to inspiration of Tolkien (or was that another saga?:)) it is probably a keep or a redirect to the more widely known, for english wikipedia anyway, the english title. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the article isn't verfied doesn't mean it's not verifiable. If the quality of the article, or at least the quality of the sourcing, demands it's pruned back to a stub, then maybe that's what we need to do, but the answer to the question should English Wikipedia have an article about the Saga of Hervör and Heidrek? is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julle (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the article's sources are given in a general reference list rather than in footnotes can hardly have any impact on the notability of the subject itself. /FredrikT (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This saga is very well known and very important. See hervara saga. I would have been very surprised if there were not an article on it in Wikipedia. There are scholarly articles within each of the four books listed as references, which mostly agree with one another. I see no reason to suppose that the writer relies for everything only on the article on A. Hall from which only page 14 is referenced. I think Hall's article, as the most recent complete study of the work, deserves this mention in the article. I don't how what the author of this complaint was looking up when he claimed he could find no texts on the web talking of this saga. His search skills seem to be abominable. Jallan (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that it is notable, at least per the Tolkien connection (although I'm not certain that it is or isn't, as he drew from a plethora of sagas and mythology), unfortunately I can't see any reasonable option other than to cut it back to a stub. If not, I'd have to WP:TAGBOMB it for citations. As it stands, I haven't seen that any regulars other than myself have it on their watchlist for the last few years, and I have no reasonable excuse for removing new unsourced additions as I'm inevitably questioned as to why it isn't acceptable due to the rest of the content being unsourced/unverifiable. I'll accept it as being notable for Wikipedia under the circumstances, but think it best to cut and paste the unsourced content on the talk page and only reinstate it as it is cited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That the article is at least notable is proved by the number of references on the web. See [[90]]. To assume your good faith I must assume your ignorance of this. Your attempt to have this article deleted is plainly illegal because the article is notable, not even regarding the fact that Christopher Tolkien is one of the sources given. As has been pointed out here already by others, lack of citation through footnotes is not the same as lack of verifiability. Stop trying to confuse the two. This is a topic which there are are almost no current disputes to be addressed. You haven't indicated any. So what is your problem? One might simply point out the lack of disputes and cite vii to xxxviii in Christopher Tolkien [[91]] and note that Alaric Hall's 2005 article suggests a slightly revised schematic stemma of the text's relationship. Or would that be too easy a solution? You assume that Alaric Hall's article is dubious but don't verify this. One rule for you but one for others is not good practice. Alaric Hall's article seems to me to be valid as do his other articles. See http://www.alarichall.org.uk/iease.php . Nothing he has posted here looks crank to me. No articles show that Goths were really Martians or Moonmen. Nothing anywhere in this article supports your contention, so far as I can see, that the article is based only on WP:OR. The academic material in this argument appears to me to be based mainly on works by Christopher Tolkien, not WP:OR. If I gather from your discussion, simply acknowledging this in the article should satisfy you citation complaint, though most others seem to have already figured that out. Jallan (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jallan, it appears that you've forgotten about fundamental principles of Wikipedia, being WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The article has been on my watchlist as a by-product of my predominant field, being that of Eastern European mythology and equivalent 'sagas'. Rather than expend your energy on deriding me and presenting RS pertaining to the article here, you could add it to your watchlist and involve yourself in its development (you're notably absent from both the edit history for the article and talk). I'm more than happy to remove it from my watchlist and leave it to someone who has the expertise to enter into dialogues with IP and one-off users who may or may not bother to discuss any unsourced content changes, prominently the latter. Considering that you have an abundance of evidence as to its meeting GNG for English Wikipedia, I'm happy to drop it so long as you commit yourself to overseeing it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (keep). - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sippai[edit]

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

The film has reportedly been shelved. Cast and crew has not worked on this project for almost a year. It's unlikely to be continued or to be released. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Saravanan, Sippai Gautham Karthik, Sippai

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for a slow-moving project which has begun filming and is not yet released.[92] Even were this to be never released, we'd have coverage to show its failure as meeting inclusion criteria. Or perhaps the topic can be spoken of in the director's article? IF there ever is one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, not much has changed on that site since 2013 and I've heard from insider circles that the crew is unlikely to continue this project. Btw, it was also me who created this article and I nominated it straightaway for deletion since I wasn't sure if it's notable enough to be kept as an unreleased film. If it meets the criteria, I'll withdraw the nomination and re-edit the article. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Well, as WP:NFF instructs that failures can even meet inclusion criteria, the information on its filming and (failed) completion certainly has enough sourcability to be spoken of within the filmmaker's article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Bay Raptors[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only coverage I could find is [93], but it is only a passing mention, thus failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Esquivalience ^t 00:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Australian sports body/team. Insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG, with significant media coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm fairly certain that the sources aren't there to make this pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 05:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Canvas[edit]

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

pure jargon; insufficient evidence that it is distinctive DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of different adaptations of the Business Model Canvas, e.g. the aforementioned Lean Canvas, Strategy Sketch (3rd version; there was the Value Model Canvas & Value Envelope), PhD Model Canvas and others. The Lean Canvas is simply the most widely known adaptation of the Business Model Canvas. Thus I propose either keeping or merging with Business Model Canvas. Irene31 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I agree with DGG's assessment of the current article. Also looking into the available secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be enough data to justify this article. Even if this is the most widely known adaptation of the Business Model Canvas. Merging this article into the Business Model Canvas, with a short real description and illustration, might be an option.

Also the creator of the Lean Canvas Ash Maurya, does seem to gain some notability, following in the footsteps of people like Eric Ries and Alexander Osterwalder. He won a Jolt Award, and is described as "one of the leaders in the Lean Startup movement." (Croll & Yoskovitz, 2013). (In time) there could be an article created about him with some mentioning of the Lean Canvas. -- Mdd (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambedkarite buddhists group[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG: can't find any reliable sources covering this religious organization. Esquivalience ^t 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Der yck C. 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1606 Jekhovsky[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the suggestion is to not to automatically redirect or delete, but to examine each to see if it should be kept as an article or redirected to the list, per discussions at WT:ASTRO/WT:AST -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of individual notability per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect where to? Sandstein 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My suggestion would be List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Howe[edit]

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

He does not seem to have a notable film career - most of his bio is puff about people he worked with. It seems to imply that the film he is most known, Going Back, was a cult classic, but I've never heard of it and it doesn't have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes. I was unable to find sufficient references to establish notability for his stage career. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Piar[edit]

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

Mission Piar has since been discontinued and changed names several times since 2003 (Plan Piar, Misión Piar, Reconversión Minera, Plan Caura). There are no sources and the mission is no longer as notable as other Bolivarian missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiaLater (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that notability is not temporary if you haven't already: Even if the project is defunct, notability is established by sources from its time, in whichever name it used to be in. For full consideration, adding more {{Find sources AFD}} for all the past names. I see a few plausible hits, but I don't read Spanish well enough to say for sure. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NTEMP. Amortias (T)(C) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sign of Koth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sign of Koth

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

I'm not particularly familiar with the Cthulhu Mythos, but since the Sign is mentioned only once in the two stories cited in the article, I'd venture to say it doesn't require a separate article. (Mind you, the automated Afd procedure got stuck part way through, and I had to complete it manually. So perhaps the Great Old Ones are displeased.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. I added it there, so there's no need to merge. As far as I'm aware, this isn't a major part of the mythology. Searching through Google doesn't reveal anything illuminating, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, I'm pretty familiar with the Mythos and would be astonished if there were signficant independent coverage of this topic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. Amortias (T)(C) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of a notable topic but not a notable topic. delete per WP:GNG Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I am not familiar with the subject matter, but the arguments are pretty convincing and the subject does not appear to be notable on its own. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NetCrunch. The discussion below has shown that the notability of AdRem is not independent of its flagship product NetCrunch. I would personally recommend writing a section in the article NetCrunch about the company, but there is little worth merging from this article. Der yck C. 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdRem Software, Inc.[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator with the following rationale: "Added additional citations for notability, removed notability objection. Paessler comparable company has page both for corporation as well as flagship product. Adrem is global corporation with 1000s of clients" First part of the arguments fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, second is irrelevant - size by itself is not related to notability; what we need is in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. Those, however, are lacking - the article has a big list of dubious external links (to Russian PC Magazine, some blogs, etc.). I am not seeing much on news, and much of what I see are PR releases. Lots of red flags here suggesting your average variety commercial spam trying to use Wikipedia as Yellow Pages. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can be compared to IpSwitch.com, a competitor with their WhatsUp Gold monitoring platform. adremsoftware.com has a lower Alexa page rank that ipswitch.com, in and of itself justifying notability. Both in terms of product offering, size of the enterprise, and notoriety on the internet, Adrem Software compares to competitors that are happily listed on wikipedia without complaints. You can find a huge list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems, with many software offerings and organizations listed that have less notoriety. The network monitoring field itself is fairly niche, and "in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources" is rarely that, but is in fact paid advertisement. The number of users is a much more effective measure of notoriety, especially in such a niche market, than how many paid reviews you have. There are sources in multiple languages.

User:mRojek — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and on the verge of WP:ADMASQ. @MRojek:"...compares to competitors that are happily listed on wikipedia without complaints...": WP:OTHERSTUFF, as Piotrus already wrote above. Tigraan (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: !vote changed, see below Tigraan (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: OK, but that has to do with notability. AdRem Software is more notable than many of the others listed here. What about the rest of the points made? My question would be what would qualify as notoriety in an industry that lacks it? Wikipedia has a "network monitoring" entry, and hosts many options and organizations in the field. AdRem shares a similar scope in terms of functionality, clientele, and organization as these, and in fact exceeds that of many. Why the additional scrutiny here? Should dozens of entries be removed to fit this narrow definition of notability that doesn't take into account the realities of the industry? What could be a better gauge of notoriety than client reach, or Alexa rank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they should. We have way to much spam in the form of Yellow Page like entries about companies that do not belong to encyclopedia. If it makes you feel any better, Paessler is clearly not passing notability either. I will prod it shortly. Alternatively, you could try to change Wikipedia policies themselves; best to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't make me feel better that your crusade is going to gut the network monitoring entries. Paessler should be here, as should IpSwitch, Solarwinds, and the multitude of other, smaller entries for the network monitoring as well as the comparison of network monitoring entries to have relevant and useful information. You haven't responded to most of my points, however. According to Wikipedia policies, regarding notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29#No_inherent_notability. The audience is important as well in determining notability, which is covered both via Alexa as well as clientele. Furthermore, international sources are necessary and are included. In terms of media, there is much more coverage in German, Japanese, and Polish media, among many others. How many should be included to fit your criteria? Primary sources regarding AdRem Software's products are plentiful, but there must be constraint in how many are going to be posted. The article here has an appropriate amount of detail, and is not an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.156.53 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the very policy you quoted, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Where are those effects in our case? (not talking of future possible effects, but of demonstrated effects with reliable sources of course) If you feel the notability criteria are too stringent, go discuss them on the guideline page; if you think many covered subjects are less notable than this one, go delete them.

Oh, and "OK, but that has to do with notability. AdRem Software is more notable than many of the others listed here" (etc.) is quite an incredible response to a WP:OTHERSTUFF critique - did you even read and understand the page? Tigraan (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does an organization need to meet *all* of those criteria to be considered notable? Because if that's the case, you'll have large corporations that don't have demonstrable effects. But of course, it doesn't. The text you quoted requests that simply be considered, and does not read like a requirement. AdRem Software fulfills the depth of coverage requirements (as stated, more can be added to clutter if that is what is required) and audience requirements. Those are *primary* criteria according to the regulations. It doesn't need to be a discussion about changing the policy, since primary criteria in this case are fulfilled. You are citing evaluation suggestions as a reason for deletion, while ignoring the fact that the primary criteria are fulfilled, especially given the scope of the industry in question.

Of course it is not a cumulative requirement of impact on culture AND society AND entertainment etc.; that's what the word "OR" means. In that case, the most likely impact it could have had is science, economy or possibly society, but I do not quite see it. You are right that it is not a "rule" or "primary criterion" (we call that policy) but merely some help to interpret the policy (we call that a guideline). So back to the core policy: where is the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"?

The references leave me unimpressed. [94] is a press release. [95] is WP:PRIMARY. [96] is just a stock listing (guess what, it is not enough). And finally, [97] mentions AdRem among the "honor roll" (not the "winner's circle") of a specific software contest with 4 "winners" and 14 "honorable" mentions. The "awards and recognition" section is actually a disguised reference list, but there it seems to be blogs and passing mentions (note the "significant coverage" requirement; being listed on a "products of the week" article is hardly a proof of notability...).

Hence, the primary criteria for notability are not fullfilled the least by the current list of references, and I could find nothing better by searching the web. Admittedly, I did not look at all references from "awards and recognition" so I might have missed something.

Please be aware that WP:BOMBARDing an article with references to avoid getting it deleted is generally not viewed favorably: what is needed is some few good sources, not a lot of bad ones. Tigraan (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and all the similar ones. Corporations that want to be listed an line can create entries for themselves in CrunchBase, the Yellow Pages, Google+, LinkedIn, Yelp and many other directories that welcome business listings. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, as it fulfills the primary notability criteria for depth of coverage and audience. Depth of coverage is presented both in English and for the foreign-language requirement. More could be added, but would result in clutter. A great deal of foreign-language coverage is available, but would be of little interest to English language readers. Audience is established both in size and scope of global clientele, as well as with Alexa ranking. As quoted from the policy "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." and there exists a great body of international as well as US national media. Furthermore, deleting both this and other sources would gut the network monitoring topic, and significantly reduce an interested user's access to comprehensive information on the topic. Mrojek 17:35, 1 April 2015 (CET)

Please provide those good sources that demonstrate depth of coverage, because I still have to see any (per my comment above; no need to rehash the same discussion twice). If this AfD eventually ends up "gutting the network monitoring topic", then so be it: the article stands or falls on its merit, and not on considerations of "dangerous precedents" or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tigraan (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are ignoring Audience, which the AdRem Software entry would fulfill. The policy does not require all conditions be met, as evidenced by illegal conduct being listed. AdRem Software fulfills the Audience policy, especially when considering the industry. Aside from clientele totals and Alexa ranking, you may also be interested in a list of clients: http://www.adremsoft.com/customers/

Time for press, i suppose. First of all, dismissing Network World? That is the #1 publication for this industry, dismissing it is ridiculous. Specific major analyst coverage can be found from Gartner: http://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2014/05/09/monitoring-technology-pick-week-of-may-12th-2014-adrem-netcrunch/ and from EMA: http://www.enterprisemanagement.com/research/asset.php/2772/Report-Summary---EMA-Radar-for-Enterprise-Network-Availability-Monitoring-Systems-%28ENAMS%29:-Q3-2014

Additional press (tried not to repeat from same domain):

That'll be more than enough to fulfill the press point. Therefore both depth of coverage and audience conditions are met, while the independence of sources is covered by major IT publications posted above. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what to say other than repeat the policies. We need substantial coverage from reliable independant sources. That is a cumulative condition: there must be a couple of issues from independant and reliable sources that have substantial coverage. A lot of significant coverage in unreliable sources plus a lot of passing mentions in reliable sources is not enough.

Please stop dropping tons on references in the hope one will stick. Nobody will go through the hassle of reading them all. Please give one, two or at most three sources that establish notability: the best that you can find, in terms of prominence, detailed coverage and independance from the subject. If those are good ones, then it is enough to survive AfD; if they are found lacking, then the others are no use. Tigraan (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dropping references hoping one will stick. Two major analyst firms are a major source of notability. Network World, Major Geeks, Toms IT Pro, InfoWorld, are all **MAJOR**, reliable third-party press sources. I abstained from blog posts, forum posts, shareware sites. You've already disregarded Network World, which as i said before, is absurd when establishing notability in this field. All of the sources from the USA and Poland specifically, are major, and more than fulfill the requirements. You are, again, ignoring the audience condition of the notability policy which is clearly being met. The point of the list is to show there are many, many sources. For the entry itself, it was limited to only a few, relevant ones to prevent clutter. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.214.21 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained the problem and you seem not willing to listen. At present moment, there are:

reliable sources, but only passing mentions, such as this Netword World "product of the week" page;
significant coverage, but in unreliable sources, such as this (if it is not a blog post, I do not know what it is). Remember "unreliable" means "unreliable to establish notability", not "with factual errors".

No amount of both will ever be equivalent to a single reliable source with significant coverage, which I did not find by my own search or when looking through (part of) your list, and which is required by the policies (if you disagree here, please say so in a clear and direct way).

Hence why I ask you to put forward a very limited number of references (no more than 3) that you think are the best ones. You think all of them are good, fine, but please select the best for us to read, because some people (including myself) are not willing to spend five hours checking all the references for a WP article in a domain where they are no specialists to find out 90% are not GNG material but the other 10% are enough. Tigraan (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My list has a Network World comparison entry, not product of the week. You cherry picked one bad foreign language one to suggest that it's a representation of the whole? Focus on English and Polish and you have reliable sources. It doesn't require 5 hours, but presenting a limited selection will just make it easier for you to dismiss them. The policy says that a compan is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Three is now significant? Come on. Mrojek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.156.53 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you abstained from blog posts, forum posts, shareware sites, and I found one blog post (which, by the way, looks fine to me, but it just doesn't pass the criteria for reliable sources). One of the Network world links was to the "product of the week" thing.

Now you might say it was only some of the references and I was unlucky in picking, but some of the other references are fine, and worthy to look at. Fair enough. But you see, that is exactly the problem I complained about and you did not address: the useful information is drowned out by the bad one. And yes, three, or even two good sources makes for a significant subject, a thousand shaky ones do not. Tigraan (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: just to be perfectly clear, if you are afraid to present a limited set of sources because I could dismiss any single entry, this is precisely where the problem lies. Tigraan (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Available sources include Network World, PC Pro and Network Computing, PC Advisor and others. Software has been the subject of numerous in-depth reviews and articles. The only possible reason for deletion would be promotion, but I don't think the promotion is adequately problematic to warrant deletion. Trim the awards section and do 5 minutes of copyediting and we'll have a decent page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What you, User:CorporateM, and User:Mrojek are clearly missing, is that all the sources here are about the company's product, NetCrunch software, which may be notable. But the company that made it, AdRem, doesn't seem to pass WP:NCOMPANY. It doesn't matter how many more reviwews or mentions of its products you find; we are not talking about them. Notability of a product has no bearing on the notability of the producer; notability is not inherited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly? Feel free to cite that policy then, because in general corporations are notable for the products they create, or the services they provide, not for merely existing. Also, to quote the policy regarding your new arbitrary standard: "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus

WP:PRODUCT, last paragraph: Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.

However, this should not be taken to the extreme that "a product's notability has no impact whatsoever on its designer's": the point is that if a company is very notable (possibly due to a very successful product), then it likely has coverage on its own. I remain unimpressed by the four sources ~~you~~ CorporateM provided, which deal exclusively with the product. (BTW, the PC Advisor link is a weak one even for notability of NetCrunch.) Tigraan (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previously listed sources also include major, independent sources writing about NetCrunch Tools, a separate program from NetCrunch itself, i'll be happy to find more for you, but google is your friend. Aside from that, AdRem has other products listed in similar major sources: Here's a Network World article about FreeCon and Server Manager: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2314952/software/adrem-manages-netware-and-oes-servers-from-a-single-console.html, and Freecon alone: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2312943/software/adrem-upgrades-freecon-for-netware.html. Novell: https://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tools/13979.html. Note that Novell has lost significant market share in regards to servers in recent years, but AdRem was once a major player in this arena. AUS Freecon: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/65245/price_right_these_management_tools/. Server Manager through Novell feature story: https://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/291.html. This is why i am of the opinion that NetCrunch deserves its own page, as it has current, widespread notability, and AdRem in general, not just for NetCrunch, but for the library of software past and present. However, if an article specifically focusing on AdRem Software is what you want, here: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2320216/software/adrem-aims-to-simplify-windows-network-management.html Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan

Thank you! That latter source is more in line with what we were looking for. I usually do not like opinion pages, but it seems to be independant coverage. With that in mind, I change to weak keep (full keep would need another source). Tigraan (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with the CEO? http://www.computerworld.pl/artykuly/322316/EnFace.Tomasz.Kunicki.html. I'll keep looking for a few more to add. Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Interviews are not considered independant coverage, since the journalist is not making his own analysis. It could be an interesting addition to the references section, though (unlike the "product of the week" stuff). Tigraan (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's paywall locked, but from Gazeta Wyborcza we have about Novell success: http://www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/1,0,926770,19991012RP-TKO,CUDZE_CHWALICIE_SWEGO_NIE_ZNACIE,.html. Here is Rzeczpospolita (newspaper): http://www.ekonomia.rp.pl/artykul/74122.html I'll continue looking Mrojek (Talk) User:Piotrus User:Tigraan — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Network World seems like a reliable source ([98]). [99] this article only deals with the company in passing, but it is helpful. Pl AdRem, firma informatyczna z Krakowa polskim Liderem Eksportu is good, if brief. I cannot access the GW newspaper. It's a shame that AdRem doesn't host mirrors of its press coverage. If I could review this GW article, maybe it would be enough to change my opinion, the other two sources go a long way to help. Btw, Mrojek, are you connected to AdRem? I am curious about your interest in this company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, unfortunately there is no mirroring of press coverage. Yes, i work here, but i'm not sure what bearing my interest should have? My only interest is to fulfil the policy requirements, which at this point i think have been more than reached. Major US and international publications have covered both AdRem, and more specifically, a variety of the company's software. NetCrunch obviously deserves its own entry, but creating entries for the rest would be clutter, and given that much of the coverage is about both AdRem as well as a given product, a corporate page would be more than sufficient Mrojek (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EXTERNALREL and the following. Long story short: if you are paid for editing WP, you absolutely need to disclose it in a visible manner; and in any case, it is better to avoid articles where your judgement may be biaised (your town, your job, etc.). Tigraan (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Through I personally have no issue with it, and I believe you handled yourself here is a neutral manner, yes, our policies do require that editors reveal any professional conflict of interest they may have when it involves paid editing. See WP:PAID. Again, no worries - but I'd encourage creating a userpage where you clearly state your affiliation. (I believe my userpage, for example, states my employee as well). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not paid for editing WP. But sure. I'll get to putting together a page, given how much time i spend here any way. I've been having enough trouble with the signatures that i suppose it's time to learn. I will post a summary below citing a few selected sources, and outline concisely my argument for keeping the page through highlighting how it meets policy requirements.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete The attempts to throw potential references until one sticks doesnt give me hope that they are actually notebale. Amortias (T)(C) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is addressed further on, notable references are provided both for AdRem Software as well as for individual products by the firm, in national and international media. Attempt was not to throw, but incorrectly trying to fulfill a request for multiple sources. Mrojek

The wall-of-text discussion is intimidating, but it eventually ended up with one quality source: [100]. The jury is still out about whether it is enough (I tend to think it is). Tigraan (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources from Polish national media to add to that, in the case of AdRem specific media. I continue hold that the significant coverage for NetCrunch, NetCrunch Tools, Server Manager, and FreeCon should also apply, as creating independent pages for each separate tool would be clutter, and this page would suffice for all (save NetCrunch). As a software company, most coverage will be about the products themselves. Mrojek

Redirect It is painfully obvious that NetCrunch is notable whereas its developer is not. The few admissible sources that cover the company rather than its flagship product[101][102][103] are insufficient to warrant a separate article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to summarize the total discussion, NetCrunch is the topic of most of the media presented here. However, we do have accepted major, third-party sources as AdRem specific availble: [104][105][106]. Of course, as a software company, it's difficult to separate AdRem from it's products, but FreeCon, LiteCon, ServerManager and NetCrunch Tools are subject to a great deal of accepted media sources. My suggestion would be to keep this page and the NetCrunch one, instead of making separate pages for each product. Also, aforementioned competitors have also been kept after review, with admittedly less media. I would recommend amending according to User:CorporateM suggestions, with perhaps a paragraph on each product with acceptable sources to reinforce notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrojek (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Iaritmioawp --_nonsense ferret 14:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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