Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 January >

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bauman[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a failure to undertake WP:BEFORE (subpart D) responsibilities. Arguably passes prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH as he has "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." With 6,316 all-purpose yards, and four seasons with > 1,000 rushing yards, Bauman is considered one of the top running backs in FCS history. National media attention includes (1) this from ESPN.com. Clearly satisfies the WP:GNG standard based on additional local and regional coverage, including (2) this from The Arizona Republic, (3) this from the East Valley Tribune, (4) this from the Missoulian, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Arizona Daily Sun, (8) this (complete article appears to be behind pay wall) from The Sacramento Bee, and (9) this from The Tribune (San Luis Obispo). Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, lots of reliable sources covering the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG after excellent work by Cbl62.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is there. That said, too many of these would-be-pro articles are created when the player is a free agent signee or late-round draftee which emphasize the player's non-existent NFL playing career, when it should be re-written to emphasize the player's actual accomplishments as a college athlete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is mostly a copyright violation (G12) of [1] and once this is removed the page is not worth saving. BethNaught (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jani-King[edit]

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

Has had a bit of coverage in media occasionally but article is completely promotional and unsourced. Blythwood (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was also created by an Orangemoody sock, thus making it eligible for speedy deletion. MER-C 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chomi Prag[edit]

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

Person seems to be not sufficiently notable. Subject is an attorney, but does not seem distinguished in her field. The two books that she has written are about herself and one of her cases. She is a minor candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, but so are many other people. Weazie (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable for being an attorney, writer, or presidential candidate. Meatsgains (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, users gofundme page has raised $10 out of the $7,000,000 she needs toward her presidential run. -Andrew (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party outlets. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page may be useful for those curious about the backgrounds of lesser known candidates in the New Hampshire primary. Vanwely (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" is not notable. Weazie (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Family Worldwide[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because there is no need for ABC Family Worldwide to have a Wikipedia article. It may still legally be in business, but ABCF Worldwide was never listed on Disney-ABC's website, despite the channel itself being part of the site. Add in the constant and unnecessary name changes made to the article, it calls for drastic measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeFan91 (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep, valid article with references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. "The" Disney-ABC site might not a good criterion as the sites I found list their products and not their company structure. This company is part of the Disney–ABC Television Group. External sources acknowledge its existence, too. As far as the recent "constant and unnecessary name changes" are concerned, it just needs a reliable source to do so. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Well-sourced article on an eminently notable subject. --Finngall ^talk 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent ABCF/Freeform-era info to Disney–ABC Television Group, the rest goes to International Family Entertainment as a historic article This company has been merged with the parent organization for thirteen years. Why we still have this article as a present-state article is beyond me; it's time to address it and split out portions where they belong. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABCFWW was not "merged" with Disney–ABC thirteen years ago. It still exists as a subsidiary. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But have they done anything of note since being subsidarized? Outside of winding down the Jetix partnership and taking control of SoapNet, the article peters out at that point, which is why I suggest the IFE split-out. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Comment - Well, the "done anything of note since being subsidiaried" (not sure if that's the correct terminology or even a word) argument realistically could be made about any company acquired by another company. But, that doesn't mean the acquired company ceases to exist after being acquired by another company. Even if an acquired company does nothing of notability after being acquired by another company, the acquired company still exists, it still operates. Plus, information about & the history of IFE is already chronicled in this article, as well as the article about ABCFWW's predecesors. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is simply a historical subsidiary today actually had a decent, independent history, and also explains why Fox has the MTM library. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coercion (band)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all my searches found nothing better at all (aside from 1 link at blabbermouth) and nothing else suggests even a minimally better article here. Notifying metal fan users Peridon and The Blade of the Northern Lights for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Alaoui[edit]

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

~~Non-notable, and while her death is tragic, seems to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL~~ JMHamo (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be hasty. Give the article a few days to be developed by editors and then decide whether the subject is non-notable. MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artforum reports on her death and cites her notable accomplishments. Meets WP:Artist Mduvekot (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She would have passed GNG even before her death. Look at source dates. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable photographer and video artist : many exhibitions in Morocco, France (Institut du Monde Arabe, Maison de la Photographie), Germany, Denmark, Lebanon, etc. --Alain Schneider (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NY Times Obit[2].--Jahaza (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after doing quite a bit of work on this article I'd say that Alaoui would have been considered notable even before her death. Her employment by high profile clients such as Amnesty International and ECHO signify a reputation for quality art. Also, as noted above, obituaries were published in mainstream media (NYTimes) and in art circles (Art Forum). MurielMary (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NYT obit is an obvious sign of notability, in addition to other notable art-related sources. Seazzy (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her work and name appears internationally. CNN, BBC, NY, amnestyinternational, WN, rajasthanpartrika.tv, morrocoworldnews, africajournalismtheworld, etc. 117.216.26.147 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to NYT, her work has been displayed around the world, and she was called "one of the most promising photographers of her generation". -Zanhe (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article cites plenty of reliable sources that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JMHamo please close this discussion and remove the tag, given the strong support for Keep above. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The poor initial quality of the article was enough to flag it for deletion. Opening with "Non-notable" makes me wonder who paid to have this article deleted.
Keep - The article itself is irrelevant. It's the subject that the AFD process examines (with some exceptions). This person passes WP:GNG by a mile. Multiple independent and secondary sources cover this person in-depth, and this article is a clear keep. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburne Hall[edit]

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

Not notable on its own - All encyclopedia worthy information is included in the Fallowfield Campus article ツStacey (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" - which part of that has not been met? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Grade II-listed building and plenty of coverage. The Historic England listing gives very good reasons as to its historic and architectural significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Redrose and Necrothesp.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Keep but Redrose has been continuously badgering me to reopen this due to the fact I closed a tad early .... so keep everyone happy I'm reopening, Completely pointless but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Human penis. After redirecting I will salt the redirect. MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schlong[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC and WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary already has this word and its etymology; usage examples can be added there. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or restore the redirect to penis (but note that this page has no incoming links). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. It's a pity we have to go the long way round via AfD for such an obvious case for a redirect (to Penis) but I see in the history that the article has been redirected several times since 2002 (!), which has always been reverted. (Most recently, today, reverted as "vandalism" by a user who presumably thought it a pity to lose his cute external link to Donald Trump's [mis]use of the word.[3]) There's probably not much use in redirecting it yet one more time. So let's delete it, and then a fresh redirect can be created, which is not as much of an invitation to edit warring. All of it because, you know, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. (I suppose I should have copied the contents to a new section in the target article, rather than trying to restore the redirect.) Dbfirs 21:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Bishonen — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no rule that says dictionary definitions have to be deleted! WP:NOTDIC urges editors to start with a dictionary definition and then expand it into an encyclopedia article. As far as a redirect goes, someone looking up "schlong" is not likely to be looking for the sort of medical and scientific information that you find at penis. H. Humbert (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @H. Humbert: That's quite an interpretation of the spirit of WP:NOTDIC there. So let's say we start with a dictionary definition and start to expand it. What would that look like? What is the subject of the article, keeping in mind that "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history"? Could you tell us how you would expand this article in a way that penis does not cover and which is not simply a[n elongated] definition of the word "schlong"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL. Try to keep it clean, Rhododendrites. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    - It wasn't intentional, but it was a conscious decision not to reword. It really is a shame that WP:DICDEF is the most relevant policy here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't UrbanDictionary. Blythwood (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect or merge to Schlong. Not enough sources for the subject to have its own article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the schlong article. Schlonged is already a redirect. H. Humbert (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human penis#Terminology. The etymology is about the only interesting thing in this article. clpo13_(talk) 08:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed nominations; these are all duplicate nominations already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki Ponds[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Taylor Valley or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do wonder if this can ever become anything but permastub? At the same time I have a weakness for anything that can have a GPS attached to it as it is is useful to see Wikipedia entries on a map. But yes, I know wP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Can anyone find anything more to add to this? If not, a merger may indeed be the correct outcome.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, absolutely, it is one of the more interesting places on earth. The Kaki ponds belong to the lakes of the McMurdo Dry Valleys, hypersaline environments where a lot of research is happening (see for example this google scholar search for some background articles). I will write a longer reply, but since the nominator brought this to WP:ANI I'll wait for the result of that before further commenting and voting here.--Lemnaminor (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karoro Pond[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Victoria Land or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kennicutt Point[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Wood Bay or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koi Peak[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Kukri Hills or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreutz Snowfield[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Cruzen Range or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Isaac[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Cruzen Range or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a duplicate; the article is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Valley (Antarctica)[edit]

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

Non-notable geographic feature; fails WP:GEOLAND. Merge with Cruzen Range or other appropriate article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low Nunatak[edit]

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

Merge with Gonville and Caius Range J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohss Bay[edit]

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

Merge with James Ross Island J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Novak[edit]

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

Merge with Cruzen Range J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuivinen Ridge[edit]

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

Merge with Saint Johns Range J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford Ridge[edit]

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

Merge with Saint Johns Range J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liadov Glacier[edit]

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

Merge with Alexander Island J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Peninsula[edit]

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

Merge with Alexander Island J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brahms Inlet[edit]

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

Merge with Alexander Island J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lobeck Glacier[edit]

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

This stub should be merged with Saint Johns Range. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See primary discussion of this and other articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landy Ice Rises. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; nomination is proposing a merge. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landy Ice Rises[edit]

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

Should be merged with the Bach Ice Shelf article J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

All of the above articles fail WP:GEOLAND and are of the same basic character: basic information from the USGS, including lat/long coordinates, and the occasional reference to who it was named for / who discovered it.

Rather than having a multiplicity of articles whose notability is questionable at best, I believe it would be better to include information on these features on the articles for the regions they inhabit, and thereby improve the quality of each article. Note also that most of the regional articles are themselves stubs and severely lacking in substantive information; by themselves, they might also fail WP:GEOLAND, but with the added information from these stubs, some of them might become quite good articles, even achieving Good or Featured status. As these stubs currently stand, there is almost no chance that any of them will ever become good articles. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last Question Unanswered[edit]

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

Book doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article. Everything in the article except the lead is a mess, and the lead isn't particularly great. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is directory entry of some sort; none of them demonstrate the book's notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and 'delete, there may be some conflict of interest issues here, the creator of this article appears to be an employee of a company associated with the book's author, which may not necessarily be a problem if this book was notable but it does not meet WP:NBOOK, having garnered no reliable reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything using the India newspaper search engine. I'd snow close this since I don't think that this will end differently, but I would like to see if there are foreign language sources available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Announced film. Not yet started production and no chance in near future, but a good chance for shelving. Charles Turing (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comità per l'Útzil del Glheþ[edit]

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

The Committee for the Use of the Talossan Language is allegedly the regulatory body for the Talossan language, a conlang whose article I also nominated for deletion a few days ago. there is no indication anywhere of WP:Notability. The organization's website does not mention any notable publications, activities, or even human names, and the only external links on the page are to sites run by Talossa enthusiasts and a CreateSpace (a self-publishing service offered by Amazon) publication on Amazon. A Google search turns up the usual collection of mirrors, blogs, and fora, plus this page at Ethnologue which is basically a rejection letter for the language. Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No, just no. Is it just me or have a lot of the articles nominated for deletion lacked notability? Jackninja5 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus here that the sources given do not demonstrate that the subject is notable via either WP:GNG or WP:PROF Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Itul[edit]

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

Let's work through the sources, demolishing this guy's claim to notability brick by brick:

Publishing house blurb
Mention in one footnote: "I am grateful to Mircea Itu for this reference."
Blog
Symposium schedule
Research proposal (!)
A couple of articles in his own newsletter
Some kind of cruft
No mention
Conference paper abstract
A one-line bibliographic entry in a 600+ page catalogue
Same entry, smaller catalogue
Write-up of a workshop talk he gave
Directory entry
Conference schedule entry
Paper submitted
A résumé
A citation in a footnote
A book of his, republished on a blog
Cruft, cruft, cruft

OK, so clearly, the subject is some kind of an academic doing reasonably serious work in his field, with a seeming penchant for attending conferences. But does anything suggest he meets the standards of encyclopedic notability described by WP:PROF? No, not really. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not meet any standards of encyclopaedic content whatsoever. Doing serious work in your field, while honourable, is clearly not what gets people into encyclopaedias, otherwise we'd have billions of articles about people who have no notability whatsoever on Wikipedia. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biru did a great source analysis. I can't see anything on Google Scholar that would suggest a high citation count, which can lead to notability. Now, let's burn us some spam! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text #1 and listing of all the subject's publications by Clairec78

Biruitorul, please explain "Let's work through the sources, demolishing this guy's claim to notability brick by brick" in regards to the Wikietiquette which clearly stipulates "to avoid the use of sarcastic language" and "not to make unsourced negative comments about living people". In the same context, please also explain what do you mean by "some kind of academic"! 1. Publishing house blurb Please check this: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/modern-languages-and-cultures/research/french-books-on-india/ Selected publication Corinne François-Denève, Mircea Itu and Ian Magedera, French Books on India: From Dupleix to Decolonization (Glasgow: University of Glasgow French & German Publications, 2011). ISBN 9780852619223. This is the first published version, with 60 bilingual annotations and a scholarly introduction which sets the scene for the usefulness of understanding what was written in French about India. On this source it is obvious that Dr. Itul is co-author in this book and member in University of Liverpool research project. 2. Mention in one footnote: "I am grateful to Mircea Itu for this reference." This source supports the previous, and there are two footnotes mentioning Dr. Itul on page 5 and on page 20. 3. 4. http://www.romanian-institute-ny.org/symposiumabstracts.html Mircea Itu Professor of Comparative Religions, Dean of the School of Journalism, Communications and Public Relations, Spiru Haret University, Bucharest, Romania Mircea Eliade’s Concept of History of Religions Symposium, Vol. XVI/1, 2009

Abstract: Mircea Eliade is the well-known Romanian scholar in religious studies, a Romanian cultural personality who is worldwide appreciated. The knowledge transmitted through his work is both actual and ageless. It is highly important for human being and for humanity, as well. The history of religions and the comparative method appear and act simultaneously in Mircea Eliade. Keywords: Eliade, religion, culture, anthropology, history, hermeneutics, phenomenology This is a proof that Dr. Itul (Mircea Itu) presented this paper at the above Symposium in New York. Alongside other 8 studies, this was published in the magazine Gracious Light, New York: http://035473e.netsolhost.com/joomla1/index.php/publications-publicatii/lumina-lina-gracious-light.html 5. http://www2.spiruharet.ro/facultati/jurnalism-bucuresti/cercetare/fd9064f5c3a9fbb703c9f7d8d8acd384.pdf This source from Spiru Haret University website proves that Dr. Itul was dean at Spiru Haret University - see last mention at the end of the document. 6. http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/459.pdf Opinia nationala (National Opinion) is not 'his own newsletter', but a university magazine, which has been published since 1992 with national and international distribution in which the subject worked and published in 2009. See below the magazine website: http://opinianationala.ro/publicatie/ 7. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/15298 This source from the University of Helsinki official website shows the paper presented by Dr. Itul at the International Society for the Study of European Ideas (ISSEI) Congress and the paper itself is downloadable. I don't see any cruft in this regard. 8. 9. http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/e107_files/downloads/Revue%20roumaine%20de%20philosophie/revue%2052.1-2%202008%20abstracts.pdf This source is an Abstract of an academic study by Dr. Itul, published by The Romanian Review of Philosophy, magazine published by The Romanian Academy, the highest academic institution in Romania, where Dr. Itul has worked since 1998. See below the Summary where to find the work published: http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/e107_files/downloads/Revue%20roumaine%20de%20philosophie/revue%2052.1-2%202008%20sommaire.pdf 10. http://www.iahr.dk/docs/Tokyo%202005.pdf See page 86: Mircea, Itu: John Cassian's Mystical Vision and Cosmic Christianity The International Association for the History of Religions is IAHR. It organises worldwide Congresses of Religion every five years. Dr. Itul took part in Durban 2000 and Tokyo 2005. 11. http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/iahr2005/pdf/web_programme_0314.pdf This source confirms information and participation to the IAHR Congress in Tokyo at page 26. 12. https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/1955 This source shows Dr. Itul participation at Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, Nagoya in 2005 at pages 3-4. 13. http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/fellows/former-fellows/register-of-former-fellows-list/ This source proves that Dr. Itul was Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities (IASH), University of Edinburgh in 2002 and that he was working for The Romanian Academy. Please see under letter 'I'. 14. http://www.iahr.dk/docs/Durban%202000.pdf The International Association for the History of Religions is IAHR. It organises worldwide Congresses of Religion every five years. Dr. Itul took part in Durban 2000 and Tokyo 2005. This source shows that Dr. Itul participated with a paper at the Congress in Durban 2000 page 60. 15. http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/Itu.htm This source is the Abstract of the paper presented by Dr. Itul at the IAHR Congress in Durban as well as information on some of his publications 16. http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/page.php?73 This is clearly not a résumé, but a detailed list of publications by Dr. Itul at the time when he worked at The Institute of Philosophy and Psychology of the Romanian Academy. This source shows that Dr. Itul published 47 academic studies, 20 co-author studies published in books, 17 books published as single author and has 7 unpublished works in the Romanian Academy archives. Please explain how come this academic works can be judged as not notable and the author named by Biruitorul as 'some kind of an academic'. 17. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=phil_fac_pubs This source is a footnote that represents a citing by Professor of Philosophy Michael S. Jones, Liberty University, Virginia. http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/philosophy/?PID=12399 18. https://andreigabur.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/curs-filosofia-si-istoria-religiilor.pdf This source is one of Dr. Itul's published books that is available also in electronic format to help anyone to see it. It was uploaded by someone else, not by the subject. 19. http://philpapers.org/rec/ITUILE, http://philpapers.org/rec/ITUILB, http://philpapers.org/rec/ITUILE-2 This three sources are three of the published books by Dr. Itul. http://philpapers.org/ This source is on index of bibliographic entries from all over the world maintained by the International Team of Editors specialised in Philosophers' Works.

Here is a list of Dr. Itul main works published for your information. It is not exhaustive, but surely shows academic notability for Dr. Itul: Publishing and editorial debut Article: Ne cheamă străbunii, ne cheamă părinţii (Our Ancestors and Our Parents get in touch with Us) in “Contemporanul”, Bucharest (Bucureşti), 1987 Volume: Poezii de dragoste - antologie universală (Love Poems – world anthology), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1992 Books Author 1. Mircea Eliade, Bucharest, Romania of Tomorrow Foundation, 2007, 124 p. 2. Kitarō Nishida, o cercetare asupra binelui (Kitaro Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good), translated from English into Romanian, with a Foreword by Mircea Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2005, 232 p. 3. Filosofia şi istoria religiilor (Philosophy and History of Religions), Bucharest, ‘Romania of Tomorrow’ Foundation, 2004 307 p. 4. Filosofia şi religiile Indiei (Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2004, 215 p. 5. Itinerarii britanice (British Journeys), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2003, 224 p. 6. Introducere în hermeneutică (Introduction to Hermeneutics), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2002, 245 p. 7. Manual de limba sanscrită (Sanskrit Textbook), Foreword by Cicerone Poghirc, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2001, 226 p. 8. Cultură şi civilizaţie indiană (Indian Culture and Indian Civilisation), Foreword by Lucia Wald Bucharest, CREDIS University College Press, 2001, 207 p. 9. Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys), vol. II, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 2000, 361 p. 10. Lila (Lila - Indian Novel), translated from Romanian into French by Raluca Taraş, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1999, 226 p. 11. Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys), vol. I, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1998, 329 p. 12. Lila (Lila – Indian Novel), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1998, 192 p. 13. Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology), Foreword by Roberto Scagno, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1997, 528 p. 14. Indianismul lui Blaga (Blaga’s Indology), Foreword by Cicerone Poghirc, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1996, 288 p. 15. Mihai Eminescu, spirit universal (Mihai Eminescu, Universal Spirit – optional textbook for exams), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1996, 84 p. 16. Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu’s Indology), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1995, 176 p. 17. Poezii de dragoste - antologie universală (Love Poems – world anthology), Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1992, 208 p. Book Chapters Co-author 1. Indian Philosophy and Religions Entries, in the volume French Books on India, formatted and revised by Mircea Itu, volume coordinated and edited by Ian Magedera, University of Liverpool, Arts & Humanities Research Council, University of Glasgow, French and German Publications, Glasgow, 2011 152 p. 2. Conceptul de spirit la Constantin Noica raportat la Mircea Eliade (The Concept of Spirit in Constantin Noica’s Philosophy and in Mircea Eliade’s Vision), in the volume Constantin Noica, coordinated by Academician Alexandru Surdu, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy, 2009 6 p. 3. Filosofia trăirii (The Philosophy of Lived Experience), in the volume Cartea și lectura – azi (The Book and the Reading - Today), coordinated by Mioriţa Got, Bucharest, ErcPress, 2010, 22 p. 4. Filosofia și hermeneutica religiei (Philosophy and Hermeneutics of Religion) in the volume Educația pentru religie și pentru cultura diversității. Competențe ale educatorului creștin (Religious Education and Diversity Culture. Skills for a Christian Educator), coordinated by Mioriţa Got, Bucharest, ErcPress, 2010, 27 p. 5. Filosofia trăirii (The Philosophy of Lived Experience), in the volume Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Studies on Romanian History of Philosophy), vol. III, coordinated by Mona Mamulea and Viorel Cernica, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2008, 25 p. 6. Alexandru Surdu despre logica religiei, (Alexandru Surdu on the Logic of Religion), in the volume Alexandru Surdu: itinerarii logico-filosofice (Alexandru Surdu: Logical and Philosophical Journeys), vol. II, coordinated by Dragos Popescu, Bucharest, Paideia, 2008, 10 p. 7. Mircea Eliade şi fenomenologia sacrului (Mircea Eliade and the Phenomenology of the Sacred), in the volume Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Studies on Romanian History of Philosophy), vol. II, coordinated by Mona Mamulea and Viorel Cernica, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2007, 24 p. 8. Mit şi timp – sacralizare şi consacrare (Myth and Time - Sacralisation and Consecration), in the volume Natura Timpului (The Nature of Time), coordinated by Adrian Niță, Giurgiu, Pelican Publishing House, 2006, 21 p. 9. Blaga şi Śankara. O perspectivă comparată, Concepţia filosofică a lui August Treboniu Laurian, Mihail Kogălniceanu – un filosof al istoriei, Idei-forţă ale filosofiei lui Mircea Eliade (Blaga and Śankara. A Comparative Approach, August Treboniu Laurian’s Philosophy, Mihail Kogălniceanu - a Philosopher of History, Main Ideas in Mircea Eliade’s Philosophy), in the volume Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Studies on Romanian History of Philosophy), coordinated by Ion Pogorilovschi, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2006, 54 p. 10. Hermeneutica mitului (Hermeneutics of the Myth), in the volume Studii de istoria filosofiei universale (Studies on the History of World Philosophy), coordinated by Academician Alexandru Boboc and N.I. Mariş, Vol. XIII, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2005, 34 p. 11. Hermeneutică şi filosofia religiei (Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Religion), in the volume Sinteze pentru anul III învăţământ la distanţă (Textbook for the Third Year of Study, Online Education), coordinated by Acsinte Dobre and Pamfil Nichitelea, Bucharest, ‘Romania of Tomorrow’ Foundation, 2004, 44 p. 12. Dumnezeu şi religia în concepţia lui Immanuel Kant din Religia în limitele raţiunii (God and Religion in Immanuel Kant's Vision from Religion within the Boundries of mere Reason), in the volume Studii de istoria filosofiei universale (Studies on the History of World Philosophy), coordinated by and Academician Alexandru Boboc and N.I, Mariş, vol. XII, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2004, 24 p. 13. Dumnezeu în viziunea lui Śankaracarya din Brahma-sutra-bhashya (God in Śankaracarya’s Vision from Brahma-sutra-bhashya), in the volume Studii de istoria filosofiei universale (Studies on the History of World Philosophy), coordinated by and Academician Alexandru Boboc and N.I, Mariş, Vol. XI, Bucharest, The Romanian Academy Press, 2003, 14 p. 14. Aspecte legate de concepţia lui Alexandru Surdu despre religie (Aspects in Relation with Alexandru Surdu's Vision on Religion), in the volume Alexandru Surdu: itinerarii logico-filosofice (Alexandru Surdu: Logical and Philosophical Journeys), coordinated by Dragos Popescu and Marius Dobre, Bucharest, Paideia, 2003, 10 p. 15. Istoria religiilor (History of Religions), in the volume Sinteze pentru anul I învăţământ la distanţă (Textbook for the First Year of Study, Online Education), coordinated by Ioan N. Rosca and Sultana Craia, Bucharest, ‘Romania of Tomorrow’ Foundation, 2003, 27 p. 16. Templul visat de Constantin Brâncuși (The Temple dreamed by Constantin Brâncuși), the volume Constantin Brâncuși, artist-filosof (Constantin Brâncuși, an artist-philosopher), coordinated by Ion Pogorilovschi, Târgu-Jiu, ‘Constantin Brâncuși’ Foundation, 2002, 5 p. 17. God was born in Exile. Mircea Eliade and the Recuperation of the Sacred, published in the volume Inhabiting the Other: Essays on Literature and Exile, editor in chief Sharmistha Lahiri, New Delhi, Aryan, 2001 and paper on Mircea Eliade’s theory of the sacred and profane presented at the Symposium Literature and Exile, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 1997. 18. Aspecte ale indianismului în capodopera Glossa de Mihai Eminescu (Aspects of Indology in Gloss, Mihai Eminescu’s Masterpiece), in the volume Eminescu în actualitate (Eminescu in Contemporary Times), coordinated by Dan Brudaşcu, Cluj-Napoca, 2000, 6 p. 19. Transcenderea contrariilor (The Transcendence of the Opposed), in the volume Eliadiana (On Eliade), coordinated by Cristian Bădiliţă, Iaşi, Polirom, 1997, 12 p. 20. Glossa, Memento mori, in the volume Literatura română pentru bacalaureat şi admitere (Romanian Literature for GCSE, A Level and University Entrance Exams), coordinated by Mircea Itu and Iustina Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1996, 10 p. 21. Mihai Eminescu (Amita Bhose, Zoe Dumitrescu-Buşulenga, Liviu Rusu, Rosa del Conte) in the volume Dicţionar de critică literară (Literary Critics Dictionary), coordinated by Mircea Itu and Iustina Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin Publishing House, 1995, 37 p. Articles and Studies Author Out of the list of published research, comprising thousands of articles and academic studies, the most interesting to mention are the following: 1. O jumătate de oră din viaţa lui Constantin Noica (Half hour of Constantin Noica’s life), in ‘Gracious Light’ (Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture), New York, ISSN 1086-2366, ISI, 2010, XV, no. 5 January to March, pp. 59-63. 2. Mircea Eliade on the Concept of History of Religions, published in ‘Gracious Light’ (Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture), year XV, number 1, January-March, New York, 2010. (Paper presented at the Symposium: Cult and Culture. The Transcendental Roots of Human Civilization, organised by the Romanian Institute of Theology and Spirituality, New York, 2008, study on the Mircea Eliade’s vision on History of Religions). 3. Hermeneutics of Myth, published in ‘Gracious Light’ (Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture), year XIII, number 4, October-December, New York, 2008. (Paper presented at the Congress of Society for European Ideas – ISSEI, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2008, study on various interpretations of the myth). 4. Pour une philosophie de la religion (To a Philosophy of Religion), published in’ Revue Roumaine de Philosophie’ (Romanian Review of Philosophy), Tome 52, number 1-2, Bucharest, 2008. (Paper presented at the South-East European Congress of Philosophy, Cyrill and Methodius University, Skopje, The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, 2007, study in French on the necessity of a Philosophy of Religion nowadays). 5. Intercultural Communication – An Openness towards the Future, published in ‘Annals of Spiru Haret University’, Journalism Series, year VIII, number 8, 2007, pp. 169. (Paper presented at the International Journalist Graduate Summer-School, University of Lund, Helsingborg, Sweden, 2008, study on the main topics of Intercultural Communication). 6. Immortality in Celtic, Thracian and Indian Religions, published in ‘Gracious Light’ (Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture), year VIII, number 4, October-December, New York, 2003. (Postdoctoral research fellowship at The Institute for Advanced Studies in The Humanities, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2002, study on Celtic Religion, Religious Studies, Inter-religious Communication and Comparative Religion). 7. Aspectos del indianismo en obras maestras de Mihail Eminescu (Aspects of Indology in Mihai Eminescu’s Works), in ‘Empireuma’, year XVIII, nrumber 29, Alicante, summer-autumn 2003, 4 pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairec78 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 January 2016‎

Thanks user:Clairec78 for your considered reply. Would you care to elaborate further? I don't think you've explained yourself in quite enough length or depth. Claudebone (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find nothing in WoS or WorldCat. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum. Found contributions in WorldCat under pen-name, but holdings are still far from showing notability (see below for summary). Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Wall of text #2 and listing of every publication that ever cited the subject, complete with abstracts and analysis of journal quality, by Clairec78

The following work has been done in order to offer an in-depth search of sources which proves Dr. Mircea Itul’s academic notability. By searching by his pen name (Mircea Itu), you’ll find many sources related to his work. In order to make your work easy, I put the sources into categories. For your further information, I added the explanations for Academic Publishing Houses and Magazines in Romania which are accredited, peer reviewed and indexed. After each type of publication, I distinguished those in which Dr. Itul had published work or the citations in others’ academic work about him.

After that I summarised the number of works and citations found in each category. All websites have been checked and were valid between 20th January and 22nd January 2016. Further search in the online documents by Itu or Mircea, or Mircea Itu, will direct you to the exact place in the source link. For citations, by searching in combination one of his names with the author of publication or citation may help you get easier to the citation. Again this is just information available on internet. More is available in offline archives. All this information serves your competent analysis and waits for an answer from you.

Romanian Academic Publications, internationally indexed or CNCSIS accredited (CNCSIS is the National Council for Scientific Research at Academic Level in Romania. CNCSIS is a member of European Science Foundation - ESF). Please see below all those in which Mircea Itul (pen name: Mircea Itu) published:

A. Romanian Magazines ISI indexed (Magazines included in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)
http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/CENAPOSS/rev_rom_isi_9%20oct_2015_factori.pdf
In regards to Itul’s publications, please take a look at no. 40 - REVUE ROUMAINE DE PHILOSOPHIE www.ifilosofie.uv.ro/revueroumaine.html

B. National Publishing Houses CNCSIS accredited http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/IC6%202011/Edituri%20nationale%20recunoscute%20CNCSIS.pdf
In regards to Itul’s publications, please check all books, and articles from the following: Editura Academiei Romane (164), Paideia (192), Fundatia Romania de Maine (171), SC Editura Polirom SA (52), Alma Mater Sibiu (43), Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti (78), Editura Universitatii Petru Maior (200), Europolis (234), Academica (69)

C. Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals)
http://www.ush-journalismstudies.com/
http://www.spiruharet.ro/en/facultate/21/jurnalism-bucuresti/cercetare-stiintifica.html
Romanian Magazines with CNCSIS B+ category
Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals), number 641 in the list
Analele Universitatii Bucuresti (University of Buhcarest Annals), number 809 in the list
http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/IC6%202011/Reviste%20romanesti%20recunoscute%20de%20CNCSIS-%20categoria%20B_plus.pdf

D. Institutul de filosofie si psihologie, Academia Romana (The Institute of Philosophy and Psychology, The Romanian Academy) REVISTA DE FILOSOFIE (The Philosophy Magazine)
http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/page.php?13
Indexed: Philosopher`s Index (page 63) REVUE ROUMAINE DE PHILOSOPHIE
http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/page.php?14
Indexed CNCSIS (A) Philosopher`s Index (page 54) Arts & Humanities Citation Index Current Contents - Arts & Humanities

E. Gracious Light
http://035473e.netsolhost.com/joomla1/index.php/publications-publicatii/lumina-lina-gracious-light.html
Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, a peer reviewed publication, is indexed and abstracted in World Laboratories and Scientific Resources Index and TLS Arhive. Gracious Light magazine is a member of the Romanian Association of Literary Publications and Publishing Houses (APLER).

Summary of works and citations with the number of findings in each category:

• According to Worldcat, there are 34 findings on Mircea Itul’s Books/Articles, under the pen name Mircea Itu, in various Academic Libraries. http://www.worldcat.org/
• 9 Citations about Itul in International Books – many of them make reference to books published in unaccredited Publications, such as: Indianismul lui Eliade, Indianismul lui Eminescu, Indianismul lui Blaga. They were made by well-known international scholars in the field.
• 1 Co-Author in International Books
• 3 Citations in International Articles
• 8 Articles in International peer reviewed Publications
• 1 International Academic Library Accredited
• 3 Itul’s Books Published in Romania – Accredited Publishing Houses
• 14 Itul’s Books Published in Romania - Other Publishing Houses
• 14 Itul’s Articles Published in Romania - Accredited Publications
• 15 Chapters published by Itul in Romanian Books – Accredited Publications
• 5 Chapters published by Itul in Books in Other Publishing Houses
• 6 Citations about Itul in Romanian Publications
• Over 30 Articles in Romanian Cultural Magazines
• 6 Articles in International Cultural Magazines
• 7 Citations in Romanian Cultural Magazines
• Co-moderator of Televison Program Capcana timpului (The Trap of Time) and Ferestrele Memoriei (Windows of Memory), broadcast by TVRM and TVRM Cultural
• Invited at Seratele muzicale (Evening Shows on Clasical Music), coordinated by Iosif Sava at TVR2.
• Invited in several Radio Programs at Radio Romania Cultural, by Constatin Aslam, a Talk Show on Philosophy.

Citations about Itul in International Books
1. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7fHzTDV5mx4C&q=mircea+itu#v=snippet&q=mircea%20itu&f=false
Esploratori del pensiero umano - Dumézil e Eliade, page 223:
‘Su Eliade e l’India, la trattatione più ampia è quella di M. Itu, Indianismul lui Eliade, Brasov, 1997; dello stesso autore, Lindianisme de Mircea Eliade, tesi di dottorato, EPHE, Section des sciences historiques et philologiques, discussa a Parigi nel 1999. Sul’argomento, si vedano inoltre: A Barbosa da Silva, the Phnenomenology of Religion, in General and of M.Eliade’s Phnenomenological Approach in Particular, Uppsala 1982, pages 161-171; F. Scialpi, Condizione umana e liberazione nelle religioni dell’India, in L. Arcella, P. Pis, R. Scagno (a cura di), Confronto con Mircea Eliade, Archetipi mitici e identità storica, Milano 1998, pages 197-218.’
2. http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/kw/camilo-pessanha/
Inhabiting the Other Essays on Literature and Exile, eidted by Sharmistha Lahiri, published by Aryan, ISBN 10: 8173052050 ⁄ISBN 13: 9788173052057
Mircea Itu, Dieu est né en exil. Mircea Eliade and the Recuperation of the Sacred, in the volume Inhabiting the Other: Essays on Literature and Exile, New Delhi, Aryan, 2001.
http://grs.du.ac.in/germinal.html
3. https://books.google.fr/books/about/Deux_explorateurs_de_la_pens%C3%A9e_humaine.html?hl=fr&id=6nwwAAAAYAAJ
Deux explorateurs de la pensée humaine: Georges Dumézil et Mircea Eliade Julien Ries, Natale Spineto, Brepols, 2003
‘Un collectif de quatorze auteurs, universitaires, spécialistes en sciences des religions, s'est penché sur les travaux de G. Dumézil et M. Eliade. Ils mettent en évidence les apports et les enjeux de leurs travaux tout en faisant le point sur les polémiques à caractère politique surgies après leur décès, survenu en 1986.’
Citation on page 159 and on page 299: ‘Dans son livre d'une dimension monumentale, intitulé L’indianisme d'Eliade, le jeune orientaliste Mircea Itu s'engage dans une analyse minutieuse et systématique des recherches entreprises par Mircea Eliade sur les mythes, les symbols…’
4. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7fHzTDV5mx4C&pg=PA223&dq=mircea+itu+rickets&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOgrO7hbvKAhUFWxoKHRvXCXAQ6wEILTAC#v=onepage&q=itu&f=false Deux explorateurs de la pensée humaine: Georges Dumézil et Mircea Eliade Julien Ries, Natale Spineto, Brepols, 2003
Natale Spineto, Mircea Eliade: materiali per un bilanci storiografico Citation 65, page 223, on Itul’s book Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology)
5. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I53LCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT93&dq=mircea+itu,+spineto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_DfgbvKAhUBJhoKHTdtDZEQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=itu&f=false Mircea Eliade, Le forme della Tradizione e el sacro, AA.VV. A cura di Giovani Casadio e Pietro Mander, Mediteranee, Footnote 449 on Itul’s book Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology)
6. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SvMYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mircea%20itu&f=false
The Human Being in Contemporary Philosophical Conceptions, edited by Nikolay Omelchenko, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, citation on page 38, footnote 12.
7. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=389Xd0VRsJ4C&pg=PA69&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mircea%20itu&f=false
Bibliography of Modern Rromani Linguistics: Including a guide to Rromani linguistics compiled by Peter Barker (Aarhus Universitet) and Yaron Matras (University of Manchester), John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Citation on page 69, footnote 494.
https://benjamins.com/#about/companyprofile - peer reviewed Publishing House
8. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MxO6AAAAIAAJ&q=mircea+itu&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
Materials on Asia, accession list and review, Volume 39, Kokuritsu kokkai Toshokan, 2001, Citation at page 52 on Itul’s book Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology).
9. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=phil_fac_pubs
Michael S. Jones, Liberty University, Department of Philosophy. Lucian Blaga: An American Pragmatist inEurope, 2005, Page 3, footnote 7, Itul’s book Indianismul lui Blaga (Blaga’s Indology).
Co-author in International Books
1. François-Denève, Corinne, Mircea Itu, Ian H. Magedera and Kate Marsh. 2011. French Books on India: from Dupleix to Decolonization. Glasgow: University of Glasgow French and German Publications. Glasgow, 2011.
In addition, please see the following link:
https://eticproject.wordpress.com/bibliography/
a few references above ‘Other cities (in alphabetical order)’
Citations in International Articles
1. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/15293/75_Damian.pdf?sequence=1
Helsinki. ISSEI, Theodor Damian, Logos and Science: Hide and Seek in God’s Universe Words and Meanings, footnote 8, page 9. Mircea Itu, Mircea Eliade (Bucharest: Fundatia Romania de Maine, 2006).
2. http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/02CynthiaDanisileNtuli.pdf
Intercultural Misunderstanding in South Africa: An Analysis of Nonverbal Communication Behaviour in Context, Cynthia Danisile Ntuli, University of South Africa, Intercultural Communication Studies XXI: 2 (2012) – citation on page 30, References, Itu Mircea. (2008). Intercultural communication: An openness towards the future. Annals of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies. 9, pages 63-66.
3. Research on Japanese Philosophy. Ralf Mueller. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Cited Mircea Itu with the (Transl.) Nishida Kitarô, In cautarea binelui, 2005 (Nishida Kitarô, An Inquiry into the Good)
http://rarufu-miura.tripod.com/newsearch.htm
Articles in International peer reviewed Publications
1. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/15298/75_Itu.pdf?sequence=1
ISSEI, Language and the Scientific Imagination, The 11th International Conference of ISSEI, Language Centre, University of Helsinki (Finland), 28th July – 2nd August 2008, Mircea Itu, The Hermeneutics of Myth.
2. http://035473e.netsolhost.com/joomla1/index.php/publications-publicatii/lumina-lina-gracious-light.html
2.1 Mircea Itu, Conceptul de spirit la Constantin Noica raportat la Mircea Eliade (The Concept of Spirit in Constantin Noica and Mircea Eliade), in Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, Nr. 3, 2009.
2.2 Mircea Itu, Spiritul în concepția lui Constantin Noica (Constantin Noica on Spirit), in Lumina lina. Gracious Light. Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture, New York, ISSN 1086-2366, ISI, 2010, XV, number 7, July-September, pages 35-42.
2.3 Mircea Itu,„God was born in Exile”. Mircea Eliade and the Recuperation of the Sacred, Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, number 4, 2008. Abstract: The study reveals the place of the exile in Romanian culture and talks about one of the most important example of both inner and exterior exile, Mircea Eliade. The recuperation of the sacred is presented as the solution to it. The author outlines the examples of important personalities from Romanian history and culture for whom „God was born in Exile”, as they were forced or they chose to live and create abroad. He then shows the importance of their creations, many of them being well recognized in their adoptive countries. Then he gives the example of Mircea Eliade which proves the complexity of exile and reveals both inner and exterior exile. He explains the diversity of expericences that Eliade had. He expressed his ideas in different languages, being well appreciated for his outstanding concepts in comparative religion. The author says that Mircea Eliade taught about the liberation of man from the terror of history and the abolition of time, he wrote that there is an exile of human being from the profane time and from the fear of death. The solution which Eliade proposed is the exit from profane time while rediscovering, through true knowledge, the sacred aspect of time, the cosmical and reversible time. He suggests the trip towards the origin for the recuperation of the sacred time.
2.4 Mircea Itu, The Hermeneutics of Myth, Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, number 3, 2007, pages 33-49. Abstract: The article outlines the significant role which the hermeneutics of myth played in the philosophical approach towards religion in general. The author follows different interpretations of the myth and relates them to other theories of myth, both traditional and modern. The author shows some definitions of the myth and the view on the myth of different scholars who studied this field. Myth is not a false story, but a sacred history. He points out that myth is complementary to science and to history. He then describes the categories of myth and its meanings. Afterwards, he reveals the perception of myth in the modern world and the negative theories against myth. He concludes by showing what the aim of de-mythicisation should be and that myth serves as a model, with its sacred and repetitive nature, being a ground for human behaviour.
2.5 Mircea Itu, Îndumnezeirea omului in viziunea lui Dumitru Staniloae (God in man in Dumitru Satniloaie’s Vision), Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, number 4, 2006.
2.6 Mircea Itu, O jumătate de oră din viața lui Constantin Noica (Half an Hour in Constantin Noica’s Life), in Lumina lina. Gracious Light. Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture, New York, ISSN 1086-2366, ISI, 2010, XV, number 5, January-March, pages 59-63.
2.7 Mircea Itu, Mircea Eliade şi fenomenologia sacrului (Mircea Eliade and the Phenomenology of the Sacred), in Lumina lina. Gracious Light (Review of Romanian Spirituality and Culture), year VI, number 3, New York, July-September 2001.
International Academic Libraries Accredited
1. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/42836428/intercultural-communication-openness-towards-future
https://www.ebsco.com/about/who-we-are
Itu, Mircea, PUB. DATE, January 2008, Annals of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies;2008, Vol. 9, page 63, Source TYPE Academic Journal, DOC. TYPE, Article ABSTRACT The following article has recently been presented as a paper in the international meeting on communication and journalism that took place at University of Lund, Helsingborg campus, Sweden, July 2008. It deals with the importance of inter-cultural communication, its values, principles, attitudes and purposes. Inter-cultural communication is viewed as the basis for international relations. Actually, inter-cultural communication is a window towards the future, as people from different cultural background interact more and more. We explain the concept of culture, the difference between culture and civilization, as well as between inter-cultural communication and cross-cultural communication. The relationship between inter-cultural communication, education and religion is also emphasized.
Itul’s Books published in Romania
Accredited Publishing Houses
1. Mircea Itu, Mircea Eliade, Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei România de Mâine, 2007, 124 pages.
2. Mircea Itu, Filosofia şi istoria religiilor (Philosophy and History of Religions), Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei “România de Mâine”, 2004, 307 pages.
https://andreigabur.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/curs-filosofia-si-istoria-religiilor.pdf
3. Mircea Itu, Cultură şi civilizaţie indiană, Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii Bucureşti, 2003, Foreword by Professor Lucia Wald.
Other Publishing Houses
1. Nishida Kitaro, O cercetare asupra binelui (An Inquiry into the Good), translated from English and Foreword by Mircea Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin, 2005, 232 pages.
2. Mircea Itu, Filosofia şi religiile Indiei (Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions), Braşov, Orientul latin, 2004, 215 pages.
3. Mircea Itu, Itinerarii britanice (British Journeys), Braşov, Orientul latin, 2003, 224 pages.
4. Mircea Itu, Introducere în hermeneutică (Introduction to Hermeneutics), Braşov, Orientul latin, 2002, 245 pages.
5. Mircea Itu, Manual de limba sanscrită (Sanskrit Textbook), Foreword by Cicerone Poghirc, Braşov, Orientul latin, 2001, 226 pages.
6. Mircea Itu, Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys), IInd volume, Braşov, Orientul latin, 2000, 361 pages.
7. Mircea Itu, Lila, roman indien, translated into French by Raluca Taraş, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1999, 226 pages.
8. Mircea Itu, Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys), Ist voume, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1998, 329 pages.
9. Mircea Itu, Lila, roman indian (Lila, Indian novel), Braşov, Orientul latin, 1998, 192 pages.
10. Mircea Itu, Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology), Foreword by Roberto Scagno, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1997, 528 pages.
11. Mircea Itu, Indianismul lui Blaga (Blaga’s Indology), Foreword by Cicerone Poghirc, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1996, 288 pages.
12. Mircea Itu, Mihai Eminescu - spirit universal (Eminescu - Universal Spirit), Braşov, Orientul latin, 1996, 84 pages.
13. Mircea Itu, Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu’s Indology), Braşov, Orientul latin, 1995, 176 pages.
14. Mircea Itu, Poezii de dragoste (antologie universală) Love Poems, World Anthology, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1992, 208 pages.
Itul’s Articles Published in Romania
Accredited Publications
1. Despre cartea de debut a filosofiei moderne japoneze (On the first Book in Modern Japanese Philosophy), in Academia Romana, filiala Iasi, Institutul de Cercetări Economice şi Sociale Gh. Zane, in Symposion, Revistă de Ştiinţe Socio–Umane, Volume 3, Number 1 (5), 2005, pages 44-50.
http://www.ices.ro/symposion/arhiva/symposion_05_1_2005.pdf
2. Pour une philosophie de la religion, in “Revue Roumaine de Philosophie”, 50, number 1-2, Bucureşti, 2008.
http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/e107_files/downloads/Revue%20roumaine%20de%20philosophie/revue%2052.1-2%202008%20sommaire.pdf
3. Symboles indiens chez Mircea Eliade, in “Revue Roumaine de Philosophie”, 49, number 1-2, Bucureşti, 2005.
4. Hermeneutica mitului la Eliade (The Hermeneutics of Myth in Eliade), in “Analele Universităţii Spiru Haret” (Spiru Haret Annals), Studii de Filosofie (Philosophy Research), number 9, Bucureşti, 2007.
5. Idee şi metodă la Eliade (Idea and Method in Eliade), in “Analele Universităţii Spiru Haret”, Studii de Filosofie (Philosophy Research), number 8, Bucureşti, 2006.
6. Blaga şi Shankara (Blaga and Shankara), in “Analele Universităţii Spiru Haret”, Studii de Filosofie (Philosophy Research), number 7, Bucureşti, 2005.
7. Istoria ca viaţă spirituală (History as Spiritual Life), in “Analele Universităţii Spiru Haret”, Studii de Filosofie (Philosophy Research), number 6, Bucureşti, 2004.
8. Book Reviews on James W. Heisig, Şcoala filosofică de la Kyoto. Nishida Kitaro, Tanabe Hajime şi Nishitani Keiji (Kyoto School of Philosophy), translated by N. I. Mariş and Mona Mamulea, Bucureşti, Merc Serv, 2002, 396 pages and James W. Heisig, Dialogues Few Inches Above the Ground., translated by N. I. Mariş and Mona Mamulea, Bucureşti, Merc Serv, 2003, 220 pages, in “Revista de filosofie” (Philosophy Magazine), volume LI, number 3-4, Bucureşti, May-August 2004.
9. Lucian Blaga despre buddhism. De la samsara la nirvana (Lucian Blaga on Buddhism. From Samsara to Nirvana), in “Studii de filosofie” (Philosophy Research), Analele Universităţii “Spiru Haret” (Spiru Haret Annals), number 4, Bucureşti, 2002.
10. Prezentarea Congresului Internaţional de Istoria Religiilor (Review of the IAHR Congress in Durban), in “Revista de filosofie” (Philosophy Magazine), voume L, number 5-6, Bucureşti, September-December 2002.
11. Conferinţe internaţionale despre opera şi personalitatea lui Mircea Eliade susţinute la Institutul de Filosofie al Academiei Române (International Papers delivered at The Romanian Institute of Philosophy and Psychology), in “Revista de filosofie” (Philosophy Magazine), number 1-2, Bucureşti, January-April, 2002.
12. Filosofia practicii Yoga (The Philosophy of Yoga Practice), in “Revista de filosofie” (Philosophy Magazine), volume L, number 1-2, Bucureşti, January-April 2002.
13. Congresul Internaţional de Istoria Religiilor (The IAHR Congress), in “Academica”, Bucureşti, 2000.
14. Number 25 in the list - Mircea Itu, in Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti, Câteva elemente de filosofie la Ioan Cassian (Some philosophical Ideas in Saint John Cassian), pages 335-338, 2007 Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, Universitatea din Bucuresti, Filozofie.
http://www.unibuc.ro/n/cercetare/list-publ/docs/2011/iun/27_14_28_17filosofie_asociat.pdf
http://www.iahr.dk/docs/Tokyo%202005.pdf
Chapters in Romanian Books
Accredited Publishing Houses
1. Transcenderea contrariilor (The Transcendence of the Opposed), in volume Eliadiana, coordinated by Cristian Bădiliţă, Iaşi, Editura Polirom, 1997, 12 pages starting with page 71.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8pFuAAAAMAAJ&q=mircea+itu,+spineto&dq=mircea+itu,+spineto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_DfgbvKAhUBJhoKHTdtDZEQ6AEIPDAE
2. Filosofia trăirii (The Philosophy of Lived Experience), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Research on History of Romanian Philosophy), III-rd volume, coordinated by Viorel Cernica, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2008.
3. Alexandru Surdu despre logica religiei (Alexandru Surdu on the Logics of Religion), in Alexandru Surdu: itinerarii logico-filosofice, II-nd volume, coordinated by Dragoş Popescu, Bucureşti, Editura Paideia, 2008.
4. Mircea Eliade şi fenomenologia sacrului (Mircea Eliade and the Phenomenology of the Sacred), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Research on History of Romanian Philosophy), II-nd volume, coordonated by Viorel Cernica, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2007.
5. Mit şi timp – sacralizare şi consacrare (Myth and Time-Sacralization and Consacration), in Natura timpului (Nature of Time), coordinate by Adrian Niţă, Giurgiu, Pelican, 2006.
6. Concepţia filosofică a lui August Treboniu Laurian (August Treboniu Laurian’s Philosophical Concepts), Mihail Kogălniceanu – un filosof al istoriei (Mihail Kogalniceanu – a Philosopher of History), Idei-forţă ale filosofiei lui Mircea Eliade (Main Ideas in Mircea Eliade’s Philosophy), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei româneşti (Research on History of Romanian Philosophy), coordinated by Ion Pogorilovschi, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2006.
7. Hermeneutica mitului (The Hermeneutics of Myth), in Studii de istoria filosofiei universale (Research on History of World Philosophy), coordinated by academician Alexandru Boboc, N. I. Mariş, XIII-th volume, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 2005.
8. Hermeneutică şi Filosofia religiei (Hermeneutics and Philosophy of Religion), in Sinteze pentru anul III învăţământ la distanţă, coordinated by Acsinte Dobre şi Pamfil Nichiţelea, Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei “România de Mâine”, 2004.
9. Dumnezeu şi religia în concepţia lui Immanuel Kant din Religia în limitele raţiunii (God and Religion in Immanuel Kant from Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei universale (Research on History of World Philosophy), coordinatoed by Alexandru Boboc and N. I. Mariş, XII-th volume, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 2004.
10. Dumnezeu în viziunea lui Śankaracarya din Brahma-sutra-bhashya (God in Śankaracarya’s Vision from Brahma-sutra-bhashya), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei universale (Research on History of World Philosophy), coordinated by Alexandru Boboc and N. I. Mariş, XI-th volume, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 2003.
11. Istoria religiilor (History of Religions), in Sinteze pentru anul I învăţământ la distanţă, coordinated by Ioan N. Roşca and Sultana Craia, Bucureşti, Editura Fundaţiei “România de Mâine”, 2003.
12. Templul visat de Constantin Brâncuşi (The Temple dreamed by Constantin Brancusi), in Constantin Brâncuşi, artist-filosof (Constantin Brancusi – Artist and Philosopher), coordinated by Ion Pogorilovschi, Târgu-Jiu, Editura Academica Brâncuşi, 2002.
13. Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals) Volume 10, 2009 Aspecte non-verbale in comunicarea interculturala (Non-verbal in Inter-cultural Communication)
http://www.ush-journalismstudies.com/issues-list/93-volume-10-2009/213-aspecte-non-verbale-in-comunicarea-interculturala
14. Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals), Volume 9, 2008 Intercultural Commnication – An Openness towards the Future
http://www.ush-journalismstudies.com/issues-list/94-volume-9-2008/252-intercultural-communication-an-openness-towards-the-future
http://www2.spiruharet.ro/facultati/jurnalism-bucuresti/cercetare/0a52016b39f3719b3fe33ca93db88d48.pdf
15. Mircea Itu, Blaga and Śankara, Alma Mater Publishing House, Sibiu, 2008.
http://www.uamsibiu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Series-C-Social-Sciences%E2%80%932008%E2%80%93Nr1.pdf
Chapters in Books in Other Publishing Houses
1. Filosofia trăirii (The Philosophy of Lived Experience), in Cartea și lectura – azi (Book and Reading Nowadays), coordinated by Miorița Got, București, ErcPress, 2010.
2. Filosofia și hermeneutica religiei (Philosophy and Hermeneutics of Religion), in Educația pentru religie și pentru cultura diversității. Competențe ale educatorului creștin (Religious Education and the Culture of Diversity. Christian Educator’s Competences), coordinated by Miorița Got, București, ErcPress, 2010.
3. Aspecte ale indianismului în capodopera Glossa de Mihai Eminescu (Aspects of Indology in Glossa by Mihai Eminescu), in Eminescu în actualitate (Eminescu nowadays), coordinated by Dan Brudaşcu, Cluj-Napoca, 2000.
4. Glossa, Memento mori, in Literatura română pentru bacalaureat şi admitere (Romanian Literature Textbook for GCSE and Entrance Exams), coordinated by Iustina Itu and Mircea Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1996.
5. Mihai Eminescu (Amita Bhose, Zoe Dumitrescu-Buşulenga, Liviu Rusu, Rosa del Conte) in Dicţionar de critică literară (Dictionary of Literary Critics), coordinated by Iustina Itu and Mircea Itu, Braşov, Orientul latin, 1995.
Citations in Romanian Publications
1. ”Ovidius” University, Constanta, Facultatea de Istorie si de Stiinte Politice (Faculty of History and Poitical Science), Lucrarile Conferintei Studentesti “Proiectii Europene si Globale (European and Global Projects, Ist edition), 9th April 2011, Constanta, Footnote no 8, on page 17.
http://proiectii.wikispaces.com/file/view/volum+conferinta+studenti.pdf
2. Institutul Academiei Romane din Cluj - Dictionarul romanului roman intre 1990 si 2000 (Dictionary of Romanian Novels between 1990 and 2000) - Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys), Ist volume is included.
http://www.inst-puscariu.ro/DCRR_1990-2000.pdf
3. Romanian Review, Volume 50, Issues 6-12, Europolis Pub., 1995, three citations on pages 88, 89 and 90
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jOcVAQAAMAAJ&q=mircea+itu&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
4. INDIA & MIRCEA ELIADE – WANDERING THROUGH THE LABYRINTH Mihaela-Alina Chiribau - page 909, Petru Maior University Targu Mures, Footnote 51, page 909 and number 13 in Bibliography on page 911, citation of Itul’s book Mircea Eliade, București, Editura Fundației România de Mâine, 2006.
http://www.upm.ro/ldmd/LDMD-02/Lit/Lit%2002%20B9.pdf
5. TEOLOGIA KANTIANĂ (Kant’s Theology) by PR. DR. DORIN COSTESCU, Deva, Editura Emia, Citation on page 218, footnote 404: Mircea Itu. (2004) Dumnezeu si religia in conceptia lui Immanuel Kant (Religia in limitele ratiunii). (God and Religion in Immanuel Kant in religion within the bounds of Bare Reason), in Studii de Istorie a Filosofiei Universale (Research on History of World Philosophy), XIIth volume. Bucuresti. Editura Academiei Romane. Apg 284.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SUqaBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=mirce+itu&source=bl&ots=c1jVlGiK6M&sig=1xfOKCjED2dOeOpsZOZKRISA7Ow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP6ZOiobHKAhWBjXIKHdPoB9Y4vgEQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=mirce%20itu&f=false
6. Mircea Handoca, Mircea Eliade Bibliografie, Editura Jurnalul Literar, 1997, citations on page 207, footnote 7952; page 222, footnote 8118; page 224, footnote 8146.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bgwsAQAAMAAJ&q=mircea+itu,+spineto&dq=mircea+itu,+spineto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_DfgbvKAhUBJhoKHTdtDZEQ6AEIJzAB
Articles in Romanian Cultural Magazines
1. Idei religioase și concepții filosofice la Mircea Eliade (Religious Ideas and Philosophical Concepts in Mircea Eliade), in “Origini”, ISSN 1094-5814, 2010.
2. Excerpte din lucrările Congresului Internaţional de Istoria Religiilor (Antonio Barbosa da Silva, Natale Spineto, Philip Vanhaelemeersch, Michiaki Okuyama, G. J. Muthuraj, Elena Borta etc.) (Excerpts from the work sat the International Congress of the History of Religions), in “Astra”, Braşov, May, June, July, August 2000.
3. Lucian Blaga despre samsara (Lucian Blaga on Samsara), in “Astra”, Braşov, May 2000.
4. Julien Ries despre antropologia religioasă în viziunea lui Mircea Eliade (Julien Ries on the Religious Anthropology at Mircea Eliaade), in “Astra”, Braşov, April 2000.
5. Sergiu Al-George despre problema autenticităţii la Mircea Eliade (Sergiu Al-George on the Authenticity in Mircea Eliade), in “Astra”, Braşov, March 2000.
6. Claudio Mutti despre opţiunea legionară din tinereţe a lui Mircea Eliade (Claudio Mutti on the Interest of young Mircea Eliade in Legionary Movement), in “Astra”, Braşov, February 2000.
7. Gilbert Durand despre homo religiosus şi illud tempus la Mircea Eliade (Gilbert Durand on Homo Religiosus and Illud Tempus in Mircea Eliade), in “Astra”, Braşov, January 2000.
8. Bryan S. Rennie despre reconstruirea filosofiei lui Mircea Eliade (Bryan Rennie on the Reconstruction of Mircea Eliade’s Philosophy), in “Astra”, Braşov, November-December 1999.
9. Mac Linscott Ricketts despre prietenia dintre Mihail Sebastian şi Mircea Eliade (Mac Linscott Rickets on the Friendship between Mihail Sebastian and Mircea Eliade), in “Astra”, Braşov, October 1999.
10. Eugen Simion despre literatura lui Mircea Eliade (Eugen Simion on Mircea Eliade’s Literature), in “Astra”, Braşov, September 1999.
11. Recenzie la studiul Le comparatisme de Mircea Eliade, parte din volumul Le comparatisme en histoire des religions, de Natale Spineto (Review to the Article Le comparatisme de Mircea Eliade, by Natale Spineto), in “Astra”, Braşov, December1998.
12. Mircea Eliade - un profet român cu vocaţia universalităţii (Mircea Eliade – a Romanian Prophet with the Vocation of Universality), in “Astra”, Braşov, November 1998.
13. Recenzie la cartea Mircea Eliade - definitio sacri, (Review of the Book Mircea Eliade – Definito sacri) by Wilhelm Dancă, in “Astra”, Braşov, November 1998.
14. Metafizica românească în dialogul European (The Romanian Metaphysics in the European Dialogue), in “Astra”, Braşov, October 1998.
15. Maya - visul omului şi vălul lumii (Maya – the Dream of Man and the Veil of the World). “Astra”, Braşov, October 1998.
16. Pentru o nouă filosofie a religiei, recenzie la cartea Sacru şi ontofanie (For a new Philosophy of Religion, Mircea Itu, review of the Book Sacred and Ontophany by Aurel Codoban), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, November 1998.
17. Jurnal indian (Indian Journey), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, series, February-October 1998.
18. Spargerea acoperişului (Breaking the Roof), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, 29.04.1997.
19. Un interspaţiu al paradisului (An Interspace of Heaven), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, 30.03.1997.
20. India de dincolo de timp (India beyond Time), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, 23.03.1997.
21. Tripartiţia (The Tripartition), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, 2-nd February 1997.
22. Descartiruirea (Detachment from Descartes), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, 12th January1997.
23. André Malraux, in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, 24th November 1996.
24. Motive indiene în pictura românească de azi (Indian Motives in the Romanian Picture of Today), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, Braşov, January 1996.
25. Ultima zi, întâia zi (The Last Day, The First Day), in “Gazeta de Transilvania”, issue consecrated to Romanian Revolution), Braşov, 23rd December 1989.
26. Arhetipuri ale culturii române în capodopera lui Sergiu Al-George (Cultural Romanian Archetypes in Sergiu Al-George’s Masterpiece), in “Caiete critice”, Bucureşti, 2000.
27. Interview with Mircea Itul, made by Gabriel Stanescu, Timpul, May 2008.
http://www.romanian-philosophy.ro/newsletter/pages/08_06_iunie/[interviu]Mircea_Itu_Eliade_Timpul_Mai.pdf
28. Sarău, Gheorghe; Itu, Mircea şi Moleanu, Julieta 2001, Bibliografie generală la cursul “Cultură şi civilizaţie indiană“(Bibliography to the Book Indian Culture and Civilisation). Credis: Universitatea Bucureşti, pages 185 – 201.
29. Mircea Eliade si fenomenologia sacrului (Mircea Eliade and the Phenomenology of the Sacred), Mircea Itu, Romania Culturala, revista centrului cultural roman. Verso, Number. 14-15 / 15 March - 15 April
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=375
Radio Romania comunicat de presa, Simpozion Maraton Literar European Symposium European Literary Marathon ), transmisiune directa la Televiziunea romania de Maine, realizator Ion Bucheru. Evocare cu prilejul centenarului nasterii: Mircea Eliade - personalitate a culturii europene, Facultatea de Filosofie si Jurnalism, moderator Mircea Itu Evocari: Italo Svevo, Carmen Conde, Konstantinos Kavafis, Facultatea de Limbi si Literaturi Straine, moderator Mircea Itu
http://www.comunicatedepresa.ro/radio-romania/de-ziua-europei-radio-romania-actualitati-da-startul-maratonului-literar-european/
De ziua Europei - RADIO ROMANIA ACTUALITATI da startul MARATONULUI LITERAR EUROPEAN
30. Idei religioase şi concepţii filosofice în opera ştiinţifică a lui Mircea Eliade. Mircea Itu. (Religious Ideas and Philosophical Concepts in Mircea Eliade’s Academic Works). Radio3Net
http://main.radio3net.ro/sis/eliade/index.php?cx=articol_vic
31. Some of Mircea Itul’s articles published in Opinia Nationala
http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/510.pdf - about Adrian Paunescu http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/471.pdf - about Main ideas in Mircea Eliade http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/424.pdf - about the Forum of Journalism and Communication, Kavala, Greece http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/465.pdf - Naked Journalism http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/456.pdf - Mitu’ cu M.Itu on the Myth http://opinianationala.ro/d/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/475.pdf - the Xth Epistle (from a series of 10 Epistles)
Articles in International Cultural Magazines
1. Aspectos del indianismo en obras maestras de Mihail Eminescu (Indology Aspects in Mihai Eminescu’s Masterpieces), in “Empireuma”, year XVIII, number 29, Alicante, summer-autumn 2003.
2. God was born in Exile. Mircea Eliade and the Recuperation of the Sacred (Dumnezeu s-a născut în exil. Mircea Eliade şi recuperarea sacrului). “Anuarul Departamentului de Studii Germanistice şi Romanistice” (Annals of The department of Germanic and Romance Studies), Delhi University, New Delhi, 1998.
3. Eminescu - Universal Poet, and the translation in Hindi of Mihai Eminescu’s poem Şi dacă....“ (And if…) Anuarul Institutului Central de Hindi” (Annals of The Central Institute of Hindi), Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India, 1993.
4. Cronica revistelor de cultură / literature. Prof. dr. Ion Pachia Tatomirescu. Revista Agero. Germania. Mircea Itu cited from Gracious Light with the Article Mitul (The Myth) (pages 33 – 49).
http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/REVISTA-AGERO/CULTURA/Cronica%20revistelor%20de%20cultura%20si%20literatura%20de%20Ion%20Pachia%20Tatomirescu.htm
5. Itul’s books Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology) and Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu’s Indology)
6. http://www.aml-cfwb.be/catalogues/general/auteurs/37194
Itul’s books Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology) and Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu’s Indology) in Belgium Museum of Literature.
7. AMERICA ROMANIAN NEWS Year 102, NO. 9-12, Mircea Itu taking part in the launch of a new newspaper in New York: ‘Memoria exilului romînesc: ziarul Lumea libera din New York’ (Remeberin the Romanian Exile: Free World Newspaper from New York
http://www.romaniansocieties.com/rom_societies/2008%20Dec-%20page8.pdf
Citations in Cultural Magazines
1. Note de lectura despre Dicţionarul scriitorilor români de azi, unde Mircea Itu este inclus. (Reading Notes), in The Dictionary of Romanian Writers Nowdays, where Mircea Itu is included). Lacramioara Stoie. „Porţile Orientului”, Iaşi, 2011.
http://www.revista-astra.ro/literatura/files/2013/10/lacramioara-stoie.pdf
2. Critica Literara si Universitatea – citation by Rodica Marian, O critica asumat neimpresionista (Critics assumed nonimpresionist), in Vatra, number 7 / 2007 in Romania Culturala, Review of The Romanian Cultural Institute
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/articol.php?cod=5612
http://www.romaniaculturala.ro/
3. Jurnalul la Mircea Eliade, Julien Green si Ernst Junger (Mircea Eliade’s Journal. Julien Green and Ernst Junger), Phd Thesis, PhD student Lauria Serban, citation number 22 from the List of Literary Critics, Mirea Itu, Transcenderea contrariilor (The Transcendence of the Opposed). Eliadiana, Cristian Badilita. Polirom, Iasi, 1997, pages 71-86.
http://www.educati2.ro/docs/drd/Luria-Rebeca-Serban/proiect_LuriaSerban.pdf
4. Ioan Morar, Chipurile divinităţii, la Academia Română (Ion Pogorilovschi, Mircea Itu) (The Faces of Divinity in the Romanian Academy: Ion Pogorilovski, Mircea Itu). Revista de traditie si actualitate in biserica ortodoxa romana. Mitropolia Clujului, Albei, Crisanei si Maramuresului
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tSZFM4y76gAJ:www.tabor-revista.ro/revistaCustom.php%3FrevistaId%3D89+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
5. Citind Lumina Lina (Reading Gracious Light). Georgica Manole. March 2010
http://www.luceafarul.net/citind-%E2%80%A6-lumina-lina
- in Luceafarul Magazine Citing Mircea Itul’s Interview with Constanting Noica.
6. Relativement en Contrepoint, George Anca. No14 Plus Minus. October 2010 Citation on Mircea Itu: „27 aprilie 2010. Indianişti români de ieri şi de azi. ”Indianistica românească înseamnă pentru mine şi cele trei cărţi ale lui Mircea Itu, şi volumele lui Vasile Andru şi eseurile de indoeminescologie ale lui George Anca, eruditele studii ale lui Liviu Bordaş, şi recentul jurnal din India al Mihaelei Gligor, alăturat altor jurnale de călătorie, ce ne aduc aproape nu doar parfumul exotic al Indiei, ci şi cate ceva din sufletul „Indiei eterne” (Mircea Handoca).”
http://no14plusminus.ro/2010/10/10/1148/
7. Destine Literare. Revista lunara de cultura editata de Asociatia Canadiana a scriitorilor Romani (Literary Destinity. Monthly Cultural Magazine, published by The Associatin of Canadian Writers of Romanian Origin), Year 4. Number 7 (9), January 2010. Two citations about Mircea Itu
A) În clasa „dreptilor”, a celor care au interpretat realist, corect, biografia omului Eliade, cu sincopele din viata lui, sunt nominalizati Mircea Handoca, Mircea Itu, Wilhelm Danca, Petru Ursache, Sergiu Al-George, Adrian Marino, Constantin Popescu-Cadem, Matei Calinescu, Gheorghe Bulgar, Sorin Alexandrescu (nepotul de sora a savantului), Cicerone Poghirc, Eugen Simion, Gheorghe Glodeanu, Cezar Baltag, Cornel Ungureanu, M.L. Ricketts, Bryan Rennie, Seymour Cain, Paul J. Griffith, David Cave, Axel Michaels, C.Solomon, Carl Olson, Natale Spineto, Conrad Hyers, Douglas Allan, J. Thompson, Wendell Charles Beane, Joaquim Garrigos, Gustavo Benavidos, Julien Ries.
B) Prof. dr. Mircea ITU de la Universitatea din Bucuresti, decan al Scolii de Jurnalism, Comunicare si Relatii Publice a Universitatii Spiru Haret, cu studii în India si un doctorat luat la Universitatea Sorbona, a vorbit despre: Mircea Eliade – despre conceptul istoriei religiilor. Universitarul român, la ora actuala unul dintre cei mai mari specialisti europeni în studii hindice, valorifica, în afara de opera lui Mircea Eliade, si cele mai recente studii consacrate filozofului român, atât pe continentul european, cât si în SUA.
http://www.scriitoriiromani.com/DestineLiterare/RevistePDF/9.pdf

Thanks to user:Clairec78 for providing this additional information. Clearly by your logic an argument that is so verbiose must be unassailable. However, to really establish notability I think we need further text. More! more! more! I hope you understand. Diskspace is cheap user:Clairec78. Claudebone (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User claudebone, thank you for your posting! Although everyone can see the irony and sarcasm in your posts, please stick to the purpose of this discussion and assess the notability of this subject, based on all the evidence provided. I am sure that you made a typing error when you wrote ‘verbiose’ instead of ‘verbose’. May I just remind everyone, that your colleague user Agricola44 discharged the evidence and jumped to conclusion by searching on Worldcat by the name Mircea Itul and not by the pen name Mircea Itu. A correct search could show everyone in 3 seconds that there are 34 findings specifically for this subject, under the pen name Mircea Itu. Improving the actual page on Mircea Itul is my intention, as well.

Comment. Thank you for pointing this out – I will respond with my own "miniwall" of text. WorldCat does indeed show these publications for "Mircea Itu", but most seem to have single digit holdings, with some in double digits. I did not add-up total holdings, but in my opinion, this person is still far short of notability according to the obviously relevant WP:PROF guideline because of lack of impact. We might do the following thought experiment as a demonstration: a person writes 1,000 books, each of which have a few holdings, in which case the total might be 2 or 3 thousand. However, these numbers would be more reflective of routine bureaucratic procurement by a few very large institutional libraries rather than a large demand for a given author demonstrated by many libraries. For example, the central library "Lucian Blaga" in Cluj, Romania seems to have each of his books. In essence, the statistics do not suggest this person has been sufficiently "noted" to merit a WP article. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Thank you, Agricola44, for your posting. I am happy that at last you have properly checked on Worldcat, as the first time you said that there was nothing in there on the subject and now you admit that there are entries on him. There are indeed 34 entries on Dr. Itul (Mircea Itu). As a logical woman, I consider that opinion should always be based on facts, sustained by evidence and not grounded on feelings. You have found that Biblioteca Centrala Universitara ‘Lucian Blaga’, Cluj-Napoca (‘Lucian Blaga’ Central University Library, Cluj-Napoca) ‘seemed to have’ Itul’s books. There is a big difference between ‘seem to have’ and ‘have’ for anyone.

Reply. A few points of advice, if I may. This is not debate of semantics (e.g. "have"), so let's not waste any words on that. Second, you're not helping your case by posting walls of text that nobody will read. That is, overwhelmingly long lists will not carry the day. You will have to show that the work of this person has had impact per WP:PROF c1. The mere existence of work does not accomplish that. If I were you, I would formulate a very cogent reply that summarizes Itul's main intellectual contributions, along with what you feel are the most cited/held books/articles that support that work. That will give panelists a good way to view Itul in the most positive light. At this point, if your reply is more than perhaps a dozen lines, nobody will read it...and if nobody reads it, they won't change their minds...and if nobody changes their minds, this article will very likely be deleted. Agricola44 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Wall of text #3 and comprehensive analysis of every library that ever held a copy of the subject's work, by Clairec78

There are many other libraries in Romania that have books and articles by Mircea Itu, for example: Biblioteca Nationala (The National Library) in Bucharest, Biblioteca Academiei Romane (The Romanian Academy Library), Biblioteca Centrala Universitara din Iasi (The Central University Library in Iasi) etc.
The Romanian Academy Library, Bucharest
http://aleph500.biblacad.ro:8991/F/S9V3MR24GXMRTJND5JQYBUFK83VIGLF9PL7ITSLYXYGUAQ86CU-01185?func=find-b&request=mircea+itu&find_code=WRD&adjacent=N&local_base=RAL01&x=24&y=6&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=&filter_code_3=WYR&filter_request_3=&filter_code_4=WFM&filter_request_4=&filter_code_5=WSL&filter_request_5=
The National Library of Romania, Bucharest
http://alephnew.bibnat.ro:8991/F/CE8LIG539PSIXT39PSK3ACDA1JIC1MQMKQLGS9Q8Y24UTKX49J-06956?func=find-b&request=mircea+itu&find_code=WRD&adjacent=Y&local_base=NOCIP&x=19&y=8&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=&filter_code_3=WYR&filter_request_3=&filter_code_4=WFM&filter_request_4=&filter_code_5=WSL&filter_request_5=
The Central University Library, Iasi
http://193.231.13.17/vufind//Search/Home?lookfor=mircea+itu&type=all&submit=Cauta&page=1
Moreover, important libraries all over the world have books and articles by Dr. Itul in their catalogues, for example: Harvard University Library, The University of Chicago Library, UC Berkeley Library (please search under the pen name Mircea Itu), University of Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library and Taylor Institution Library), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bibliothek, Archives et Musée de la Littérature, Bibliothèque Royale, Bruxelles and others may come up during a professional search. There are also findings on Google Scholar by author (Mircea Itu) or citations. London Metropolitan University Library also lists findings about the subject.
Harvard University Library: 4 books on page 1 and books in which the subject is cited are from number 32 to 37 in the list of findings.
http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?institution=HVD&vid=HVD&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&mode=Basic&onCampus=false&displayMode=full&highlight=true&displayField=all&pcAvailabiltyMode=true&bulkSize=30&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cmircea%20itu
The University of Chicago Library
https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Search/Results?lookfor=mircea+itu&type=AllFields
UC Berkeley Library
http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/search
University of Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library and Taylor Institution Library)
http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=local&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=OXVU1&frbg=&tb=t&vl%28freeText0%29=mircea+itu&scp.scps=scope%3A%28OX%29&vl%28464773595UI1%29=all_items&vl%281UIStartWith0%29=contains&vl%28353692470UI0%29=any&vl%28353692470UI0%29=title&vl%28353692470UI0%29=any
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bibliothek (1 finding on the first page and 6 findings on the second page)
http://primo.kobv.de/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?ct=&pag=&indx=1&pageNumberComingFrom=4&dscnt=0&vl(1UI0)=contains&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cmirceaitu&vl(173155009UI0)=any&scp.scps=scope%3A(HUB_UB)%2Cscope%3A(HUB_EDOC)%2Cscope%3A(MAN_NL_ALL)%2Cscope%3A(HUB_ALEPH)%2Cscope%3A(hub_ebooks_all)%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&displayMode=full&tab=default_tab&dstmp=1453576216304&highlight=true&ct=PreviousPage&mode=Basic&dum=true&search_scope=HUB_ALL&indx=31&displayField=all&bulkSize=10&pcAvailabiltyMode=false&vl(freeText0)=mircea%20itu&vid=hub_ub&fn=search&institution=HUB
Archives et Musée de la Littérature, Bibliothèque Royale, Bruxelles
http://www.aml-cfwb.be/catalogues/general/auteurs/37194
Findings on Google Scholar by author (Mircea Itu) or citations
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=author:%22Mircea+Itu%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=new_articles&hl=en&imq=author:%22mircea+itu%22
London Metropolitan University Library
http://londonmet.worldcat.org/search?q=mircea+itu&fq=&se=%24d&sd=desc&dblist=638&start=1&qt=page_number_link
Additionally, even if they don’t come up in the library listings or Google Scholar listing there are citations about Dr. Itul in international and Romanian books provided before, some of them by the most appreciated scholars in the field.
As per Wikipedia guidance on notability for academics, none of the tools is exhaustive, mainly in the fields of Humanities and in some countries the bibliographical resources might not be completely unified or online. However, I ask editors to consider all the evidence that I provided about the subject, which demonstrates that Dr. Itul published in indexed and accredited publications and each of the sources has their own archive where the information is available. Please don’t ignore and refer to the following:
Romanian Academic Publications, internationally indexed or CNCSIS accredited (CNCSIS is the National Council for Scientific Research at Academic Level in Romania. CNCSIS is a member of European Science Foundation - ESF). Please see below all those in which Mircea Itul (pen name: Mircea Itu) published:
A. Romanian Magazines ISI indexed (Magazines included in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)
http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/CENAPOSS/rev_rom_isi_9%20oct_2015_factori.pdf
In regards to Itul’s publications, please take a look at no. 40 - REVUE ROUMAINE DE PHILOSOPHIE www.ifilosofie.uv.ro/revueroumaine.html
B. National Publishing Houses CNCSIS accredited http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/IC6%202011/Edituri%20nationale%20recunoscute%20CNCSIS.pdf
In regards to Itul’s publications, please check all books, and articles from the following: Editura Academiei Romane (164), Paideia (192), Fundatia Romania de Maine (171), SC Editura Polirom SA (52), Alma Mater Sibiu (43), Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti (78), Editura Universitatii Petru Maior (200), Europolis (234), Academica (69)
C. Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals)
http://www.ush-journalismstudies.com/
http://www.spiruharet.ro/en/facultate/21/jurnalism-bucuresti/cercetare-stiintifica.html
Romanian Magazines with CNCSIS B+ category
Analele Spiru Haret (Spiru Haret Annals), number 641 in the list
Analele Universitatii Bucuresti (University of Buhcarest Annals), number 809 in the list
http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/userfiles/file/IC6%202011/Reviste%20romanesti%20recunoscute%20de%20CNCSIS-%20categoria%20B_plus.pdf
D. Institutul de filosofie si psihologie, Academia Romana (The Institute of Philosophy and Psychology, The Romanian Academy) REVISTA DE FILOSOFIE (The Philosophy Magazine)
http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/page.php?13
Indexed: Philosopher`s Index (page 63) REVUE ROUMAINE DE PHILOSOPHIE
http://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/page.php?14
Indexed CNCSIS (A) Philosopher`s Index (page 54) Arts & Humanities Citation Index Current Contents - Arts & Humanities
E. Gracious Light
http://035473e.netsolhost.com/joomla1/index.php/publications-publicatii/lumina-lina-gracious-light.html
Lumina Lina. Gracious Light, a peer reviewed publication, is indexed and abstracted in World Laboratories and Scientific Resources Index and TLS Arhive. Gracious Light magazine is a member of the Romanian Association of Literary Publications and Publishing Houses (APLER).
I ask academics in Dr. Itul’s fields of study to participate into the discussion and to give their competent opinions on the subject’s notability and impact.

Delete. Single-digit citation counts on Google scholar do not provide evidence of the academic impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other sign of notability is evident, and I don't find the listings above of his accomplishments persuasive of their significance (doing a lot isn't enough by itself: you have to have influenced many others, usually so many others that it would be impossible to produce a listing like the ones given above). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text #4

As per the advice given by Agricola44, please see below:
A SUMMARY of Main Intellectual Contributions for Mircea Itul (pen name Mircea Itu)
1. Citations. According to the recent research (2015) on international ranking, the average rate of citation for Philosophy discipline is about 3 citations and has a decreasing trend. It is also recognised that the average citation rate is higher in countries such as the USA or the UK and much lower in countries such as Romania. The citations that I’ve provided to you show that Dr. Itul’s work has been cited by key academics in the field: international academics (Bryan S. Rennie, Douglas Allen, Mac Linscott Ricketts, Natale Spineto, Roberto Scagno, Giovanni Casadio, Julien Ries, Michel Angot, Cicerone Poghirc, Theodor Damian) and academics from Romania (academician Alexandru Surdu, Ioan N. Rosca, Mircea Handoca, Ion Pogorilovschi, George Anca and journalist Sorin Rosca-Stanescu). I have found 9 citations in international books, 3 citations in international articles, 6 citations in Romanian publications.
2. Single Author Books. As single author, Itul published 3 books in accredited Publishing Houses for academics. Itul also wrote 14 books cited by academics and published them in other Publishing Houses.
3. Co-author Books. Itul published 16 co-author books in accredited Publishing Houses for academics and one of them is an academic international book published in the UK.
4. Articles in international peer-reviewed and in Romanian peer-reviewed journals. Itul published plenty of articles in peer-reviewed Romanian journals, out of which 14 examples and as well 7 articles in international peer-reviewed publications are provided on this talk page.
5. Academic Libraries. Under his pen name Mircea Itu, his works are present in all Romanian academic libraries and in highly appreciated international academic libraries, as per the information and links provided before in detail: Harvard University Library, The University of Chicago Library, UC Berkeley Library (please search under the pen name Mircea Itu), University of Oxford Libraries (Bodleian Library and Taylor Institution Library), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bibliothek, Archives et Musée de la Littérature, Bibliothèque Royale, Bruxelles, Biblioteca Nationala (The National Library) in Bucharest, Biblioteca Academiei Romane (The Romanian Academy Library) in Bucharest, Biblioteca Centrala Universitara din Iasi (The Central University Library in Iasi), Biblioteca Centrala Universitara ‘Lucian Blaga’, Cluj-Napoca (‘Lucian Blaga’ Central University Library, Cluj-Napoca).
6. Academic Impact. Itul’s academic work has had impact at the Romanian Academy, the highest academic ranking institution in Romania, its Institute of Philosophy and Psychology; at Delhi University, The Department of Germanic and Romance Studies; at University of Bucharest, Faculty of Philosophy and Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures; at Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Journalism, Media and Communication, as well as former Faculty of Philosophy and Journalism. Itul was an Andrew W. Mellon research fellow at University of Edinburgh, The Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities (IASH), 2002. Itul was dean and he obtained the highest academic level as a researcher in the Romanian Academy (CP1, awarded by the Ministry of Education and Research in Romania) and the title of university professor from the Ministry of Education and Research in Romania. Itul is a scholar in Philosophy of Religion and History of Religions, who participated as invited in the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) Conferences in Durban, 2000 and Tokyo, 2005, as well as in other international conferences and symposia. Itul introduced the comparative method of teaching and the allgemeine Religionswissenschaft concept in teaching History of Religions at Spiru Haret University, after Romania was freed from the dark years of Communism, when Religion was forbidden and churches were demolished by dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Itul is the first who introduced Inter-cultural Communication as a university subject in Romania. Itul thoroughly researched the concept of Indology in the works of Romanian philosophers and writers, especially Mihai Eminescu, Lucian Blaga and Mircea Eliade. Itul is recognised as one of the main Romanian Indologists and Orientalists.
7. Awards. Itul received a diploma awarded by the Indian Embassy in Romania in 2000, then ’Amita Bhose’ award in 2005 and ‘Sergiu Al-George’ award in 2007, offered by the Indian Embassy in Romania. Itul received the prize for debut, essay category, at the National Book Fair, Cluj-Napoca, 1995 for his book Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu's Indology), Itul received the prize for promoting Romanian values, at the Winter Book Fair, Brasov, 1995. Itul received the prize for promoting the top writers of Romanian culture in the world, awarded by the Writers' Union in Romania, 1997.
8. Cultural Impact. Itul is included in Dictionarul cronologic al romanului romanesc (Romanian Novel Chronological Dictionary) and in Dictionarul scriitorilor romani de astazi (the Contemporary Romanian Writers Dictionary). Itul has been present in Romanian cultural life with his novel, journals, and articles, also broadcast on television and radio cultural programs. There are 14 books published by Itul in non-accredited Publishing Houses and over 37 articles published in Romanian cultural journals.
9. Cited and held Books and Articles. The most cited/held books/articles that support Itul’s work and notability are: Indianismul lui Eliade (Eliade’s Indology), Indianismul lui Blaga (Blaga’s Indology), Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu’s Indology), Filosofia si istoria religiilor (Philosophy and History of Religions), Mircea Eliade, Cultura si civilizatie indiana (Indian Culture and Civilisation), Transcenderea contrariilor (The Transcendence of the Opposed), Symboles indiens chez Mircea Eliade, Intercultural Communication: An Openness towards the Future, French Books on India, Idei-forta ale filosofiei lui Mircea Eliade (Main Ideas in Mircea Eliade’s Philosophy), Nishida Kitaro, in cautarea binelui (Nishida Kitaro, An Inquiry into the Good), Pour une philosophie de la religion, Blaga si Shankara (Blaga and Shankaracarya), Aspecte non-verbale in comunicarea interculturala (Non-Verbal in Inter-cultural Communication).
Someone's notability, impact and intellectual quality should not be judged only by statistics and by search tools recognised by Wikipedia for not providing exhaustive information. Please assess Dr. Mircea Itul (Mircea Itu) notability independently and objectively based on all evidence provided, consistent with how other academic profiles in Itul's field of study and in the Humanities from Romania have been assessed by Wikipedia.

Reply. User David Eppstein, thank you for your posting! May I remind you and everyone assessing Mircea Itul's notability the following paragraphs from Wikipedia: Notability (academics), which are very clear to me in regards to the tools used to assess notability, although it seems that they are not clear to others and to everyone as it should be the case: 1. 'The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important'.and 2. 'A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries' And to conclude here are two superb Classical quotes taken from Wikipedia: From Latin quod erat dēmonstrandum ‎(“that which was to be proved”), calqued from Ancient Greek ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι ‎(hóper édei deîxai, “precisely what was required to be proved”).

When is a WP:WALLOFTEXT not a WP:WALLOFTEXT? When posted by user:clairec78 apparently. Good advice "Listen user:clairec78, don't post WP:WALLSOFTEXT, but make arguements." user:clairec78 replies "yes, yes, no walls of text", and posts a wall of text. Is that the sound I hear the sound of craniums being repeatedly smashed against walls? Claudebone (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Thank you for your posting, user Claudebone. Irony and sarcasm do not show an impartial, objective and neutral point of view. Please stick to the evidence and the information provided! Please refrain from impolite attacks, from under standard comments! Please respect and comply with Wikipedia five pillars and especially to number 4 in this case: '1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. 3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. 4. Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. 5. Wikipedia has no firm rules.'

Keep This academic is apparently well recognized in his field. Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. That you started your statements with an exhortation that you were going to get this article deleted displayed a real bias. Moreover, this discussion reveals an inherent systemic bias. GIGO. You are apparently looking for English language sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit not being able to wade through all of the enormous walls above. I wonder if you might elaborate on how Itul is "apparently well recognized in his field", which I presume you gleaned from this text. I asked Clairec78 to summarize, but s/he simply listed a few individual citations & libraries holding Itul's work, "academic impact" consisting of routine academic activities, obscure awards, etc. Itul's books are in WorldCat, but holdings are meager. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Er, the purpose of starting an AfD is to convince other users an article should be deleted, so yes, that's why I started it. I freely admit: I'm "biased" in the sense that I don't think this individual is notable.
Would you mind saying just why you think the subject is "well recognized in his field", and could you provide any actual evidence he meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? That would be helpful to your case.
And please, let's leave the "systemic bias" canard out of this. I examined sources in Romanian as well as in English. No substantive results turned up on either front. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are far less worthy candidates surviving on WP. Little would be achieved if this were to be deleted. Yes "Keep""! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to support your opinion with something more than pure WP:WAX? Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I think this is a poorly written article. The editors (IMO) don't understand the difference between links and references, and I noted that on the article talk page.

Clicking through the links and the references, and reading the text, Professor Itul is well known enough and well-established enough in his field.

We also have the real problem of systemic bias and crossing (and searching) language barriers. This effects the efficacy of search engines.

That it is a poorly formatted article is no reason to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing. His books are in WorldCat...they just aren't held by more than a few institutions. Your objection is the language bias, but what we would look for here as proof of notability are translations of his books that are themselves held by a decent number of institutions. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie, Brian. "Mircea Itu — Mircea Eliade and the Metaphysics of the Upanishads: Abstract; Curriculum Vitae". Westminster College. Retrieved January 22, 2016. This paper presents, as concerns Eliade's contribution to our understanding of religion, some of his commentaries on Hinduism. They deal with the major aspect of Hindu religion, the identity between God and the human soul (the Brahman/atman Equation), among other items belonging to the Upanishadic texts. ... These articles have not been translated into any other language. The importance of recognizing Eliade as indologist is emphasized. His books and studies on indology are an interesting part of his work as a scholar in the history of religions. We should consider that he was an indologist early in his career, and it is wrong to ignore this aspect when discussing his teachings, his philosophy, or even his understanding of religion. One can easily see throughout all Eliade's work, not only in his books on Yoga, which made him famous in the theory of Yoga and an authority in the field, that his living experience in India (1928-1931) played a very important role. He was deeply influenced by Indian philosophies and religions. The six studies on the metaphysics of the Upanishads are integrated into a group of Romanian articles, which analyze ideas of Indian culture and spirituality. He is known in Romania and is an (perhaps the) authoritative scholar in his area of expertise. If I can find this kind of reference, why can't you? Perhaps because you are spelling his name wrong? And you genuinely think that languages aren't and GIGO aren't part of the problem here?

You are taking a parochial and narrow view when this is a worldwide encyclopedia. If he is important in his subject and well known in Romania's academic community, that is good enough to be notable for the encyclopedia. That his books are not translated from Romanian does not diminish their worth. I cited to an American ~~British~~ University article that testifies to his importance. [This Westminster College is in Pennsylvania. http://www.westminster.edu/about/location.cfm?campus-life] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some misunderstanding here. What you linked to seems to be written by Mircea Itu (our subject) as an abstract for a symposium presentation discussing a different person, Mircea Eliade. For example, Eliade's contribution to our understanding of religion.... It is currently just a webpage at Bryan Rennie's personal website, i.e. Rennie is not the author. Consequently, I don't think this source provides any support whatsoever to the claim in the article that Itu "is considered to be an authority on Indology". Agricola44 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

And you seem to be taking the relaxed inclusionist view that almost everyone that has their name on a paper is notable. This person is a very average professor whose prolific and prolix work has barely been noted by his peers. I'll watch the rest of this from the sidelines. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If the cited "British university" is the thing you quote above from Westminster College, well, it ain't from a British university but from some place in the USA. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Corrected it above. It is in Pennsylvania. Thanks for the headsup! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text #5 re civility and good faith

When somebody enters into a discussion by delivering an undocumented delete verdict, then admits that even minimal sources haven’t been checked properly and then that it is too much of a deal to make an effort to go through all evidence and information provided, when evidence provided is ignored systematically or diminished systematically, in my opinion this sort of editors lose credibility. The same happens in the case of those who do not show respect and civility to other editors or users. I totally agree that the page on Itul must be improved and I will work on Itul's page once it is decided not to be deleted. When my technical knowledge of formatting and editing on Wikipedia is not proper, I hope that editors will help me with that on Itul's page. User 7&6=thirteen is absolutely right to say these: ‘That you started your statements with an exhortation that you were going to get this article deleted displayed a real bias. Moreover, this discussion reveals an inherent systemic bias’. Everyone should agree that no one should start with conclusions and prejudices when assessing a Wikipedia page. One can also suppose, based on the user name, that Agricola44 is in Romania, and I am not. This would have given user Agricola44 more opportunities to check the offline sources and to check them properly in Romania. Agricola44 also mentioned that if I prepare a Summary for Itul’s contributions, the editors might change their minds. A change of mind implies that someone has already the mind set and has reached a conclusion before judging the facts and information. As several comments on this article have been mind set to delete it and threatened to delete it, proves that some editors haven’t been interested to check available sources properly from the very beginning. Those who assess should not ignore evidence based on the fact that it is detailed. They should also decide independently and objectively. Gareth Griffith-Jones is right. There are cases of Wikipedia articles on Romanian academics, on ‘far less worthy candidates surviving on WP’. Evidence can be provided about Wikipedia articles on Romanian academics and writers. But as I have noticed how thoroughly Agricola44 is doing the research, I am sure that he/she can find those pages himself/herself. Following the example of user 7&6=thirteen, one can check any or all of the names citing Mircea Itu’s works: Bryan S. Rennie, Douglas Allen, Mac Linscott Ricketts, Natale Spineto, Roberto Scagno, Giovanni Casadio, Julien Ries, Michel Angot, Cicerone Poghirc, Theodor Damian as well as academics from Romania (academician Alexandru Surdu, Ioan N. Rosca, Mircea Handoca, Ion Pogorilovschi, George Anca and journalist Sorin Rosca-Stanescu). Please review at least the Summary provided and please judge Itul’s notability based on objectivity, impartially and avoiding reductionism.user:clairec78

Side discussion re canvassing by 7&6=thirteen

Comment I've just removed this from Talk:Indology (it has nothing to do with improvement of the Indology article) and I very nearly removed a similarly non-neutral post at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been reinstated. This is blatant canvassing, given the tone. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tone. He is an Indonologist mentioned in the article. You apparently don't want those who know or care about the subject to know about this deletion. It was always a mere announcement of the existence of this page. No one bothered to inform Project Indian of the deletion. That was just overlooked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it brought you here. We welcome your input. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put this back on the Project India notice board. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Itul

AnIndologist is having the article about him being discussed for deletion. Please take a look and offer your opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text #6, "Information on Itul as Indologist"

Information on Itul as Indologist
Mircea Itul (pen name Mircea Itu) is a Romanian Indologist living in the UK.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7fHzTDV5mx4C&q=mircea+itu#v=snippet&q=mircea%20itu&f=false
https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=6nwwAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=itu
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I53LCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT93&dq=mircea+itu,+spineto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_DfgbvKAhUBJhoKHTdtDZEQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=itu&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SvMYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=mircea%20itu&f=false
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/15293/75_Damian.pdf?sequence=1
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MxO6AAAAIAAJ&q=mircea+itu&dq=mircea+itu&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
http://www.upm.ro/ldmd/LDMD-02/Lit/Lit%2002%20B9.pdf
Please search by Itu, footnote 8118 page 222 and footnote 8146 page 224:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bgwsAQAAMAAJ&q=mircea+itu,+spineto&dq=mircea+itu,+spineto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGw_DfgbvKAhUBJhoKHTdtDZEQ6AEIJzAB
Itul graduated University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, and Department of Romanian-Hindi in 1994. At University of Bucharest he studied Romanian and Indology: Hindi Language, Indian Culture, and also Sanskrit and Bengali with Professor Amita Bhose. Itul graduated University with the thesis Brahman and maya in Śankaracarya’s Vision, coordinated by Professor Eric Becescu from Lille University.
Itul obtained a scholarship given by the Indian Government and studied Hindi at Kendriya Hindi Sansthan (The Central Institute of Hindi), Agra, Uttar Pradesh from 1992 to 1993. He graduated with an A+ Certificate of Hindi.
Itul was visiting lecturer in Romanian at Delhi University, The Department of Germanic and Romance Studies, between August 1997 and May 1998. During his stay at Delhi University, he also studied Sanskrit at the Department of Sanskrit and graduated with a Certificate in Sanskrit B+.
http://grs.du.ac.in/germinal.html
http://docslide.us/documents/8-5-2011-india-eminescu-ashok-kumar-tyagi-22.html
Itul published three books well cited internationally, analysing the influence of Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions on Mihai Eminescu, Lucian Blaga and Mircea Eliade.
Itul wrote and published an Indian novel called Lila, translated into French, as well as an Indian diary in two volumes called Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys). He also wrote and published Itinerarii britanice (British Journeys) after his post-doctoral studies at University of Edinburgh, The Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. Itul presented a paper there on Immortality in Celtic, Thracian and Indian Religions, a comparative paper in Religious Studies. Itul also wrote and published Manual de limba sanscrita (A Sanskrit Textbook) for beginners. Itul participated with the following paper at the International Association for the History of Religions Conference in Durban, 2000: Mircea Eliade on the Metaphysics of the Upanishads.
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/Itu.htm
Itul obtained a doctorate from University of Paris, Sorbonne, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, with a paper entitled L’indianisme de Mircea Eliade (Mircea Eliade’s Indology), in which he treats the influence of Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions on the famous Romanian scholar of the History of Religions, Mircea Eliade.
Itul worked at the Romanian Academy, The Institute of Philosophy and Psychology on Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions, on Oriental Philosophies and then on Romanian Philosophy. He taught Philosophy of Religion and History of Religions at Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Philosophy and Journalism and Indian Culture and Civilisation, as well as Indian Literature at University of Bucharest, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures. He taught Indian Philosophies and then Shankaracarya’s Philosophy at University of Bucharet, Faculty of Philosophy.
Itul wrote and published as single author Filosofia si religiile Indiei (Indian Philosophy and Indian Religions) and Filosofia si istoria religiilor (Philosophy and History of Religions), where large chapters are dedicated to Indian Philosophy and to Indian Religions. Another book in which he is co-author and was highly appreciated is Cultura si civilzatie indiana (Indian Culture and Indian Civilisation).
http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/1131
https://andreigabur.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/curs-filosofia-si-istoria-religiilor.pdf
Itul wrote and published many articles as Indologist. Here are some of the most appreciated: Blaga si Śankara (Blaga and Śankara), Symboles indiens chez Mircea Eliade, Filosofia practicii Yoga (The Philosophy of Yoga Practice), Lucian Blaga despre buddhism. De la samsara la nirvana (Lucian Blaga on Buddhism. From Samsara to Nirvana), Dumnezeu în viziunea lui Śankaracarya din Brahma-sutra-bhashya (God in Śankaracarya’s Vision from Brahma-sutra-bhashya), in Studii de istorie a filosofiei universale (Research on History of World Philosophy), coordinated by Alexandru Boboc and N. I. Mariş, XI-th volume, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Române, 2003, etc.
http://tinread.usm.md/opac/author/19337;jsessionid=CAFE6B6CE3DFAC2660548661F51CE5FE
http://www.uamsibiu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Series-C-Social-Sciences%E2%80%932008%E2%80%93Nr1.pdf
Itul is co-author in a book published in India.
http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/kw/camilo-pessanha
Itul worked in the project French Books on India at University of Liverpool, School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies, Department of French. Itul co-authored the book with the same title.
https://eticproject.wordpress.com/bibliography/
http://michelangot.com/Michel_Angot/Bibliographie_Choix_files/Bibliographie-histoire-Inde.pdf
Itul received a diploma awarded by the Indian Embassy in Romania in 2000, then ’Amita Bhose’ award in 2005 and ‘Sergiu Al-George’ award in 2007, offered by the Indian Embassy in Romania.
http://georgeanca.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/from-ricas-president.html
In the year 2000, the Indian Ambassador in Romania, His Excellency Rajiv Dogra lauched Mircea Itu's book Itinerarii indiene (Indian Journeys) at the National Book Fair in Bucharest.
Itul received a diploma on the celebration of 25 years since the introduction of Hindi language at University of Bucharest.
http://www.edu.ro/download/sarau_1.pdf
Itul received the prize for debut, essay category, at the National Book Fair, Cluj-Napoca, 1995 for his book Indianismul lui Eminescu (Eminescu's Indology), Itul received the prize for promoting Romanian values, at the Winter Book Fair, Brasov, 1995. Itul received the prize for promoting the top writers of Romanian culture in the world, awarded by the Writers' Union in Romania, 1997.user:clairec78

Edit. I've removed the first citation in the article, which seemed to think Rennie was the author and the symposium paper discussed Itul, when indeed the paper was by Itul and discussed Eliade. I think some panelists here may be confusing our subject Mircea Itul with Mircea Eliade. Having a skim through some of the above walls, it should be clear that Itul wrote extensively about Eliade, but again, the problem is that those works have not been noted. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin. There appears to be some confusion over identities here. The citation above is an abstract of a symposium paper by Itul discussing the notable historian Mircea Eliade, but it is rendered in the WP article to appear to be written by Bryan Rennie about Itul, so as to support a claim in the lede that Itul is a notable Indologist. The only connection to Rennie is that the abstract is served from his personal website. I'd removed this erroneous citation, but it was immediately restored by User 7&6=thirteen. I've no desire to edit-war, but I think it should be made clear that this citation offers no support whatsoever to that claim. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I'd already mentioned this confusion to User 7&6=thirteen a few days ago. But given his/her defense of "Not erroneous. That's what it says. Take it to the talk page" for the undo, I think s/he is sticking with the contention that Bryan Rennie wrote a paper demonstrating that Mircea Itul is a notable indologist. This is simply incorrect. Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Agricola44, nothing that you comment here has back-up and an editor responsible for civility would have had to take a stand when so many users attacked this page, myself and Mircea Itul, creating a bias against. Wouldn't you agree with this fact, Agricola44? Here is a citation by Bryan S. Rennie about Mircea Itul (Itu): 'Mircea Itu also writes on India and on Eliade’s utility in interpreting specific texts. Like Ouellet and Berner he applies Eliade’s work to understand specific historical situations, this time from Eliade’s earliest years in India interpreting the Upanishads. Despite Itu’s occasionally hagiographic approach, which bears certain stigmata of hero-worship, he makes some good points and is by no means uncritical of Eliade. Itu focuses on six untranslated Romanian articles published in Bucharest in the 30’s in the journal Cuvântul and the review Vremea and emphasizes the importance of recognizing Eliade as an Indologist. The paper considers some of Eliade’s commentaries on Hinduism from his years in India (1929-31) dealing with a major element of Hindu religion—the identity between God and the human soul (the “Brahman/atman equation”)— \\among other items from the Upanishads. Itu argues that Eliade was deeply influenced by Indian philosophies and religions. However, he also argues that, contrary to what Eliade states in these studies, the “way to God” in Hinduism is not through revelation but through direct intuition. Itu critiques Eliade’s opinion that revelation is determined by karma (action). On the contrary, argues Itu, God is the source of revelation: karma remains in connection with the phenomenal world while intuition springs from the human soul. The paper also criticizes Eliade’s claim that the Upanishads are not mystical. These texts are the very heart of Hindu mysticism and religion, because they insist on this unity between God and the human soul. Itu also concludes that Eliade confused non-attachment with indifference.' This link is for everyone to see and to judge it with neutrality, objectivity and fairness: http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/IntEliIntro.htm user:clairec78

Clarification. The casual reader of this debate will very likely be misled by some of the above arguments from users 7&6=thirteen and clairec78, so I would like to properly clarify matters. These editors have been posting text related to a symposium on the historian Mircea Eliade. The symposium was later published by SUNY Press as "The International Eliade" edited by Bryan Rennie. Mircea Itu(l) is not the same person as Mircea Eliade, but the former did evidently contribute a paper to this volume. User 7&6=thirteen posted an abstract of what appears to be Itu's paper on Eliade, but the citation showed Rennie as the author (this error is discussed above). David Eppstein seems to have now fixed this. User clairec78 posted the text immediately above, which is evidently a draft of Rennie's introduction to the volume. In particular, it mentions Itul in the section discussing how the volume is organized. I would normally argue that this is routine editorial fodder, except for the fact that this text seems to have been cut and does not actually appear in the final printed version. In summary, I think the arguments actually being made here are that Itu is "considered to be an authority on Indology" because he contributed a chapter to the SUNY book (7&6=thirteen) and Itu is notable because he was mentioned by the editor of this volume in some draft text that is available on the web (clairec78). Agricola44 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's now not even clear to me that Itul's chapter made it into the SUNY volume. I cannot find his name in the searchable TOC on Amazon. Apologies if I am missing it somehow. Agricola44 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification. The following link is a valid independent source, written by Bryan Rennie and not by Itul! The link shows clearly that it belongs to Westminster College in Pennsylvania and its website and to Professor Bryan Rennie's profile at Westminster College! The fact that it is included or not in a later printed version does not make any difference in Bryan Rennie's opinion on the subject, published on line. http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/IntEliIntro.htm user:clairec78

Thanks so much. I think I understand your argument very clearly now. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, I can see a lot of passion here, but I just don't see how this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. He does not even seem to have a regular academic position at a university that I could find; he appears to be more of a freelance scholar who has contributed to a book or two. He has almost no citations at Google Scholar, which is one of the ways of determining that the person is "influential in their field". The arguments by the "keep" voters are not persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. MelanieN, thank you for your posting. Please check the extensive list of works in the wall papers. Itul has the PH.D. title awarded by University of Paris, of Doctor in Philosophy recognised by NARIC, the title of University Professor in Romania awarded by the Ministry of Education and Research, also the title CP1, the highest academic title in Romania from the Romanian Academy, awarded by the Ministry of Education and Research. From Notability (academics): 'Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in academic research institutes. Academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements.' Itul was professor and dean at Spiru Haret University and also taught at University of Bucharest and worked in the highest ranking academic position in the Institute of Philosophy and Psychology of the Romanian Academy. As for Google Scholars, please check in the wall text above for all the list of publications and the discussion on Google Scholar. Please check under the pen name Mircea Itu. user:clairec78
- Comment - I would just point out, for the benefit of participants who may not be that familiar with the Romanian educational system, that being affiliated with Spiru Haret University is not exactly a badge of distinction. It's a well-known diploma mill (only it doesn't even bother to hand out all the diplomas for which its customers pay: for instance, as of 2014, it had yet to award tens of thousands of diplomas to its 2011 graduates) that is frequently in trouble with the Education Ministry. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is interesting and helpful. I have to say, though, that whoever wrote the criticism section on Spiru Haret University seems almost as long-winded as Claire here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Clairec78, I realize you feel very strongly about this person. (In fact, you are what we call a WP:Single purpose account.) I would just point out that having a PhD is not enough to meet WP:SCHOLAR. Publishing papers or contributing to books or presenting at conferences is not enough; they all do that, it's their job. Having an academic position at a university is not enough (except for certain highly notable or distinguished titles). The key test is that other scholars cite their work often, which is a way of determining if their academic work is important and influential, or if it is routine. I see nothing here that isn't routine. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN Thank you for your posting. Itul's title of University Professor and the highest academic research title at the Romanian Academy were granted by the Ministry of Education and Research in Romania. In regards to work published by Itul, citations and presence in academic libraries, please read wall of text number 2, wall of text number 3 and wall of text number 4. The above information texts show that there are citations by some of the most important academics in the field, both nationally and internationally. I am sorry that I need again to post a lot of text to sustain the cause of Itul, a subject of notability. Besides the walls, please consider also the following information: Wikipedia: Notability (academics), which are very clear to me in regards to the tools used to assess notability, although it seems that they are not clear to others and to everyone as it should be the case: 1. 'The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important'.and 2. 'A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries' Citations. According to the recent research (2015) on international ranking, the average rate of citation for Philosophy discipline is about 3 citations and has a decreasing trend. It is also recognised that the average citation rate is higher in countries such as the USA or the UK and much lower in countries such as Romania. The citations that I’ve provided to you show that Dr. Itul’s work has been cited by key academics in the field: international academics (Bryan S. Rennie, Douglas Allen, Mac Linscott Ricketts, Natale Spineto, Roberto Scagno, Giovanni Casadio, Julien Ries, Michel Angot, Cicerone Poghirc, Theodor Damian) and academics from Romania (academician Alexandru Surdu, Ioan N. Rosca, Mircea Handoca, Ion Pogorilovschi, George Anca and journalist Sorin Rosca-Stanescu). In regards to Spiru Haret, it is an accredited university and Itul was awarded the title of University Professor not by Spiru Haret University, but by the Ministry of Education and Research and also taught at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures and at the Faculty of Philosophy, both at University of Bucharest.user:clairec78

Comment.Talk May I remind you that Itul was awarded the title of University Professor not by Spiru Haret University, but by the Ministry of Education. Please see the Decision of the Minister of Education Number 1643 from 2nd August 2007 the link from the Archives of the Ministry of Education in Romania and press button Descarca (Download): http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/8395 Itul also taught at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures and at the Faculty of Philosophy, both at University of Bucharest. May I also remind you to check with Romanian sources that the subject worked with Spiru Haret University up to 2009 and you mentioned information about 2011 and 2014. On top of these, in my opinion the purpose of your comment is defamatory because you simply want to harm the reputation of a living person. user:clairec78

I'm sorry, but it's not "defamatory" to emphasize the fact that Spiru Haret is a shady for-profit enterprise that skirts the boundaries of legality and hires third-rate hacks who couldn't get hired at real universities. And if your claim to some sort of validation as an academic on the subject's part revolves around his having worked there in 2007 or 2009 and not in 2011 or 2014, I'm afraid you're grasping at straws. Because we have a 2009 report wherein the Education Minister threatens to shut down the university within a week if it doesn't solve its fundamental issues; and another report from the same year attesting, with ample figures, that the "university" had become a diploma mill by 2004, and was running all manner of dubious schemes. This, ladies and gentlemen, is where the glorious Mircea Itu served as "dean". - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Talk. Spiru Haret is a private university. The concept of every private institution, including universities is to be profitable. This page is not about Spiru Haret University, but about Mircea Itul. In my opinion, your comments are defamatory again, because you simply want to harm the reputation of a living person. Please see for yourselves what satatement Talk posted: 'This, ladies and gentlemen, is where the glorious Mircea Itu served as "dean"'. Itul's notability should not be reduced to the fact that he was dean at Spiru Haret University.user:clairec78
Comment. For the subject of Spiru Haret University in Bucharest and the ex-minister of Education Ecaterina Andronescu, please check Wikipedia Ecaterina Andronescu. Please check the following: 'The University itself took the Government to court and won the right to continue operations.' Citation 15. See also plagiarism controversy on Ecaterina Andronescu. I rest may case.user:clairec78
Comment. It is not the same for an academic from the USA or from the UK and an academic from Romania to be notable. There are standards related to the country (Romania) and to the language (Romanian), as well as to publication access worldwide for a Romanian, and not the notability standards such as for countries like the USA and the UK. At the same time, for an academic to be notable it is not compulsory to have an official academic position at present. Itul holds the academic titles of University Professor, CP1 the Romanian Academy highest research scholar title. Even if he is not working in Romania, he was active there with these titles and the title of dean.user:clairec78

Delete This is a self-promotional page for a scholar whose notability cannot be discerned from the sources presented as evidence (grasping at straws, really), and on whom other serious third-party references don't appear to exist. Concerning his institution of "learning", Spiru Haret: the decision to withdraw accreditation and investigate was one endorsed across the board, and in fact has been first upheld not by Ecaterina Andronescu, but by her predecessor from another party, Daniel Funeriu. The "university" challenged such decisions in court, but what it won was the right not to be closed down, and it continues to operate on the same diploma-mill system -- only now students might be made aware that their diplomas are worthless. The amount of special pleading above is nauseating. Dahn (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 01:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (flag)[edit]

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

As the page currently stands, there are zero sources, and not enough content to justify its own article. This article was previously a redirect to Maritime flags#Jack. I propose that we redirect it back there, and userfy this page if Banderas wishes to improve it. Alternatively, he and any other interested editors have a week to improve the page in its current location, and if they can create a decent article or at least a worthy stub, I'd vote to keep it as is. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Userfy if said user wishes to improve the page - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Userfy if said user wishes to improve the page (Copied from above) Completely agree that this should not be a stand alone article and should be deleted/ redirected if it cannot be improved. ツStacey (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redundant information, already has entry at Maritime flag, no sources. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator does not propose that we delete this page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We need a page with a gallery/list of Naval jacks. The Maritime flag article doesn't have a comprehensive assortment. --Hibernian (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, with the gallery included. Article needs improvement. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but definitely worth an article of it's own. Would have closed as keep, but didn't want to be accused of closing a discussion too early, since it's about 5 hours before 7 days. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampstead Trash[edit]

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

Singularly non-notable blog about a school (which itself looks less than noteworthy, but consensus usually falls in favour of keeping the spam pages of schools). A shedload of references, but when you actually look at them virtually all are self-references; those that aren't all relate to a single incident in which the blog's author was reported to the police by the school. (Converted to AFD from WP:PROD as technically it's been nominated for deletion before; that closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation rather than anyone arguing to keep.) ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a vanity page full of WP:CRUFT. References are circular. -- Y not? 17:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this really encyclopaedic content? Jackninja5 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo!. MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encompass (company)[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 User:DGG with the following rationale "acompany that size is likely to be notable . First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD.". I don't see any sources for stand alone notability; at best this could be merged to List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo!. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a mention and redirect to the parent company? I assume that a proper article can be written from secondary sources, if anyone wanted to do so, but there's no sense in keeping a short thing like this around. -- Y not? 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I an totally fine with a merge and redirect closure at any point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I would be satisfied by that also. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as mentioned, clearly not solid as a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia's editorial community does not decide what is or is not notable enough to be stored in the annexes of history, that is the job of the world. It is merely our duty to create and maintain the electronic filing of the history provided by the society of the world into this encyclopedia. And it appears in this case that the world has decided that, Mrs. Rubio - the wife of Marco Rubio - is notable due to her marriage to this presidential candidate (proven by the sources provided in the article, and referenced in this discussion). Therefore, per WP:GNG and the fifth pillar WP:IAR, it is found by the community at-large - and the strongest policy backed arguments in this request - that the subject of this article is indeed notable, and merits its own independent page to cover the subject. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio[edit]

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

Neutral nomination: editors have suggested the article does not meet WP:GNG. Listing on AfD for broader discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Marco Rubio. See RFC at Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes_Rubio - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article covers a top level cheerleader. This is the third attempt in as many days to get this article deleted. When the merging discussions both at Marco Rubios and Jeanettes talk pages failed now you try AfD. This person is notable per WP:GNG. Being a Miami Dolphins cheerleader is not "just being a cheerleader", it is a big deal in the states and is a notable work and gives celebrity and role model status for the person. It is the top of the cheerleader status league we could say. Also her other work which is mentioned in the article is within WP:GNG. Clearly keep worthy article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was a cheerleader for only about a year and that's not what makes her notable, as this in-depth NYT profile makes clear. Jonathunder (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is like saying if Usain Bolt had been a top level runner for only about a year, that would not have been notable. It is a flawed reasoning Being a top level cheerleader is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, you nominated someone for deletion as a GNG failure and then linked to an "in-depth NYT profile" less than 24 hours later. Do you see the problem here? --BDD (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neutral nomination. I'm not sure how you missed that. Jonathunder (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By not reading closely enough. My apologies. I haven't been following the related discussions, but if BabbaQ is correct that merge discussions decided to keep separate articles, this all seems unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Question: Is it appropriate to have both a merging discussion and a AfD ongoing at the same time? Especially since it is the second Merging discussion in just a few days of the same article. Either have one or the other (Merging discussion or AfD).BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Create a redirect to Marco Rubio. A woman is not a celebrity or notable simply because she married someone who is a celebrity and notable. Mercy11 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact that she has been a top level professional cheerleader is kind of strange. She isnt just known for marrying a politician so your reasoning is flawed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to all cheerleaders, nor even to all cheerleaders for "top level" teams in professional sports. What's lacking here is any reliable source coverage that's specifically about her cheerleading; all of the sources here are about her being a politician's wife, and just mention her cheerleading by way of background information. And that's not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable for having been a cheerleader. Frex, she worked as a cheerleader in the 1990s, but there's not a single source here dated any earlier than 2010 — for her to become notable as a cheerleader, there would have to be some coverage contemporary to her work as a cheerleader (i.e. dated in the 1990s.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if (a) enough coverage specifically of her cheerleading can be found to suggest notability as a cheerleader, or (b) Marco Rubio ends up as the President or Vice-President of the United States after the election this fall, thus making Jeanette either the First or Second Lady — but nothing written or sourced here suggests enough notability to make this article keepable today. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat, I know and admire your work policing pages on political figures, and appreciate your efforts to bring articles on small-town mayors and candidates for city council up for deletion. However, arguing for deletion on the grounds that Mrs. Rubio was a non-notable cheerleader is a red herring; it's beneath you. This article is supported by in-depth coverage in the New York Times, Tampa Bay Times, The Hill, because there is an understanding on the part of editors of serious media that spouses of candidates matter. Rubio is a major candidate for the Presidency, and even if you and I see a no-accomplishment cheerleader, the interest in Mrs. Rubio as a the spouse of a potential President has generated the kind of in-depth coverage in serious media that passes WP:GNG. I urge you to take a second look at the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I didn't make up this "not notable as a cheerleader" angle on my own as a "red herring" — it was a direct response to someone who, just a few comments above if you look carefully, directly advanced the argument that her cheerleading did make her notable independently of any WP:NOTINHERITED quibbles about her marriage. It was already argued earlier on this same page that this is an article about a notable cheerleader who merely happens to also have, by the way, married a politician too — so I was responding to that argument, not making up grounds of my own. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge (same as several "Delete" and "Keep" above). This is not about a top-level cheerleader who won any notable cheerleading competition. Agreeing with Bearcat that the meager sourcing doesn't support cheerleading (or dancing) as the topic of any contemporaneous 3rd party article. Heck, not one is even contemporary about her being in the swimsuit calendar! Being an anonymous background dancing body in a notable organization isn't notable in and of itself. But the finance fiasco belongs in the Rubio article (it's mostly a quote from Rubio anyway), and the rest can be merged into Rubio's personal section. If she becomes a First Lady, then she'll be more notable.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's a borderline case, I think, but the folks who think she's notable because she was a cheerleader are completely missing why the article was created and clearly haven't considered the sources. As a political spouse she might just be notable; as a former cheerleader, not so much. Jonathunder (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Would she be notable solely as a cheerleader or a political spouse? I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. There are multiple reliable, independent sources about her. That's all we need. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All the sources in the article are either focused on Marco Rubio or on Jeanette as the wife of Marco Rubio. Not seeing anything that confers notability outside of her marriage. Also not seeing anything that needs to be merged that is not already n the other article so this is a !vote for a straight redirect (probably aimed at Marco Rubio#personal life). AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Er, guys, you do know that there's an election going on? This article got 1,000 views today, presumably because her husband might become President and people want to know who she is. We have articles on Melania Trump, Mary Pat Christie, and Heidi Cruz, but also on Columba Bush who, like Jeanette Rubio, has had no career except marriage and Candy Carson, despite an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson. The article is here because people want to know who a candidate's spouse is. Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses of politicians (categorized by state) Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed. The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything. If people are interested in who the spouse of a politician, even spouses of demonstrably no accomplishment can have enough coverage in major media to justify articles. even cheerleaders; think: Todd Palin. This is true because WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc. We do not ask what a subject is notable for. We are only here to judge whether sources that support notability exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of other stuff exists. On the other hand, there is not an article for Jane O'Meara Driscoll, who is married to Bernie Sanders. Jonathunder (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, plenty: [4] of sourcing to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane O’Meara Sanders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not "other stuff" It is as User:BDD says, that she has generated coverage to pass WP:GNG, coverage that is in-depth, widespread, has continued over time, etc. The deletion argument, by User:Cwobeel: "Her notability emanates solely for being married to Marco Rubio, and as such the article should be merged and redirected there." is trumped by the fact of the extensive, intensive, in-depth coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, however, that no amount of coverage can constitute enough coverage to get a person into Wikipedia if the context that said coverage exists in is explicitly deprecated as a notability claim by a Wikipedia rule like WP:NOTINHERITED. For example, media do cover celebrities giving birth to children in enough depth that GNG can be claimed for the baby — the problem is that the context of said coverage isn't providing a substantive reason why the child should exist as the topic of a standalone Wikipedia BLP separately from their famous parent, rather than just being mentioned within the parent's article. You can very often claim WP:GNG if a celebrity marries a non-famous person, on the basis of coverage of the wedding itself — but the context of that coverage doesn't support a standalone BLP. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. It is trumped by WP:GNG. We differ on whether the lengthy, in-depth profiles in major media, and coverage of this woman's career as a political spouse - coverage going back well over a decade - suffice to meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bearcat, I could disagree more. NOTINHERITED (an essay section) can't trump GNG. It's a Wikipedia practice, not a comment on the world at large. Someone can become notable due to their relations; if the world at large deems someone notable, it's not our place to ask ourselves why. NOTINHERITED explains why I can't write an article on Bernie Sanders's nephew and then just argue "But his uncle's a senator and presidential candidate!" But if multiple independent sources wrote profile of his nephew, he passes GNG.

With respect, you're using WP:AADD all wrong. No one is saying keep (only) "because she's Marco Rubio's wife." That would be cause for an appeal to NOTINHERITED. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage exists, as show above, to show that they pass notability criteria on their own, and are not simply relying on inherited notability. Whether we like it or not, when you reach this level in American politics, the media is going to provide the coverage Wikipedia requires. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the talk about WP:NOTINHERITED is irrelevant to this discussion because she's not just notable because she's his wife. She's notable for her coverage in the news, and there are enough RS about her. Someone mentioned Bernie Sander's wife, and she doesn't have a page because there isn't the same amount of RS to pass WP:GNG. Honestly, I didn't even know Sanders was married! But... the kind of politics that Rubio is involved in means that the media is focusing more about what kind of family he has, etc, rather than on issues, like Sanders' campaign seems to. When people look something up, I want them to have a neutral source to find out info about someone. If people are talking about Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio, then we need an article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - WP:SNOWBALL. Withdrawing nomination. Article is indeed poorly written, but I was able to find multiple non-english sources reporting on the event. However, copyediting is a must for this article. -- Chamith (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zlín Film Festival[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENTCRIT criteria, and very poorly written. Chamith (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Chamith (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Chamith (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meat shoot[edit]

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

The administrator User: Kim Dent-Brown thought this was original research in 2008 when I tried to speedy it, but refused it, as it wasn't a valid reason.

This is what he said:

Meat shoot speedy tag

Hi there, I've declined the speedy tag here although I absolutely agree that the article is original research. However OR is not a sufficient reason for speedying, and I suggest going through WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Incidentally, when tagging an article it's a good idea to warn the originating editor that you've done so. I guess you applied the tag manually? Using something like WP:TWINKLE does this autmoatically (sorry if I'm teaching grandma to suck eggs here...) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has not been updated since then, no sources since 2010, WP:OR, fails to assert WP:GNG. It is a low article, never improved. scope_creep 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete as OR. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most probably original research as the only reference is Nicholas Mead. Seagull123 Φ 21:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Sorry, I don't know the protocals for this, so if I'm violating process, please point me in the right direction. I have found the following sources that talk about Meat Shoots. Does this help keep it make an argument for keeping it around?
- http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/01/20/meat-shoots-tradition
- http://www.turkeyshoot.net
- http://walkinwiththewildwoman.blogspot.com/2013/02/meat-shoot-whats-meat-shoot.html
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvNPValH3P8
- http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/best-meat-shoot/BestOf?oid=2510089 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrettger (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 January 2016‎ (UTC)— Mbrettger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. This topic may be salvageable. Here are a few reliable sources about meat shoots:

"‘Meat Shoots’: Examining A Rural Tradition", Here and Now (an NPR program), January 20, 2014 (mentioned by the previous poster)

"Illinois Sheriff Stops 'Meat Shoot Planned For Rival", Associated Press in The Southeast Missourian, April 28, 2002.

"Trap shooting for a good cause", KHQA, January 4, 2014.</ref> (And there are plenty more like this one, describing specific local meat shoots.)

I note in passing that we also have an article for Turkey shoot, which covers a broader range of meanings for that term but appears to have similar issues with unsourced original research. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is curious that the article has been left in low state for 6 years, completely neglected. Barely anybody has even noticed it. It is off such importance. I support deleting it, and if it is required in the future, let them recreate it, with whatever sources they have on hand. Also curious that the first wp'er who commented with source, has just puffed into existence. scope_creep 22:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scope creep: If you mean User:Mbrettger, I left a message at their talk page that expressed concern that they may be the same person at User:Mrettger, the user who created this article. That's the reason I tagged User:Mbrettger's comment above with a {{spa}} tag. Seagull123 Φ 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. scope_creep 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD is not a clean up service. scope_creep 23:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Altman, Maria (2014-01-20). "'Meat Shoots': Examining A Rural Tradition". Here and Now. WBUR-FM. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  If you drive off the interstate and head down a county road, in many parts of the country you’ll often see signs for “meat shoots” at local VFWs or American Legions.
  It’s a sport some may not be familiar with, but meat shoots are an integral part of rural culture — and often serve a purpose.
  Civic organizations, conservation groups and individuals will hold meat shoots as fundraisers for people in need, for example after someone suffers a house fire or a devastating illness.
2. Altman, Maria (2013-12-11). "Aiming For Bacon: A Day At A Meat Shoot". KBIA. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The first thing you need to know about a meat shoot is that they don’t shoot animals.
  “That’s not a crazy question, you know, we get that a lot,” said DeeDee Lakas, laughing a bit. “Do you shoot the meat? No, you shoot the target.”
  Meat Shoots Around The Country
  Yet, the shoots are not unique to this region.
  “Most of the ones up here in Ohio are called Turkey Shoots,” says Linda Tubbs.
  She and her husband, Denny, run Turkeyshoot.net out of their home in Marion, Ohio.
  After traveling to shoots in several states, the couple decided to start their website for fun and list as many of the events as they could find. Soon, she says, people were calling them and giving them information.
  “There’s are a lot of different names for them. They’re called still shoots, card shoots, board shoots,” she says. “I think there are probably more shoots in southern states, and there are a lot on the East Coast.”
  Tubbs says rules vary from place to place, but generally shoots use shotguns, paper targets and winners take home some cut of meat.
3. DeMarco, Margaret (2015-12-20). "Great Falls Trap Club excited for younger participants in Meat Shoot". KXLH-LP. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Trap Shooters from all across Montana came to Ulm today to test their skills at the so-called Meat Shoot.
  The Great Falls Trap Club opens its doors the third Sunday of each month for the friendly competition, where shooters compete for different types of meat.
  ...
  Winners will take home turkey, New York steaks, ham, or a variety of meats.
  Meat shoots take place in Augusta, Choteau, Fairfield, Power and Great Falls.
4. Scott, Brian (2014-04-04). "Rocky Mountain Gun Club Hosts Meat Shoot". KTWO. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The first Friday night of the month during winter and spring seasons bring an opportunity to shoot and compete in an event called a “meat shoot”.
  The Rocky Mountain Gun Club, located at 6100 Cole Creek Road, hosts a trap shooting event with an opportunity to walk away with the “meat” of the night. At any given event, the awards could be a turkey, a couple of steaks or a pizza that all hinge on your ability to beat 4 other shooters.
5. "Meat Shoot for Thanksgiving Dinner". KFBB-TV. 2013-11-17. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
6. "Illinois sheriff stops 'meat shoot' planned for rival". The Southeast Missourian. Associated Press. 2002-04-28. Archived from the original on 2016-01-09. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Monroe County Sheriff Daniel Kelley says he was just enforcing an old, long-ignored law in barring a shooting competition in which cuts of meat are prizes.
  Never mind that the fund-raising "meat shoot" -- to have been held today -- was for Joe Brauer, Kelley's Republican opponent in the Nov. 5 election.
  ...
  Kelley, the Democratic sheriff since 1982, said he received a tip that the meat shoot would violate a county ordinance that even the county commissioners acknowledged they didn't know about.
  Meat shoots, in which meat is awarded to shooters who strike closest to a bull's-eye, are popular fund raisers for churches, sportsman's clubs and other groups. Monroe County officials said the events have been a staple there for decades.
  During a special meeting Friday, the county commissioners agreed to revise the ordinance next month to explicitly make meat shoots legal.
7. Antonacci, J.P. (2013-01-06). "Taking their best shot". Brant News. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  It's probably best, at the outset, to explain what a meat shoot isn't. There's no hunting and the only meat on hand is wrapped in butcher paper and packed safely in a freezer. Instead, participants take turns shooting at a cardboard target. The shooter with the best aim literally brings home the bacon.
8. "Ducks Unlimited, Volumes 51-52". Ducks Unlimited. 1987: 88. Retrieved 2016-01-19. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The Google Books snippet view notes:
  ... It proudly proclaimed numerous duels for dollars. But this was a meat shoot. I could almost taste the honey cured ham that was only 25 birds away. ...
9. Murphy, Dan (2015-03-16). "Meat of the Matter: Aim, shoot, meat". Drovers CattleNetwork. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  According to the newspaper, along with the gun auction, the Moose Lodge also conducted a “meat shoot.” What’s a meat shoot, you ask? It’s a contest that allows shooters the chance to win boxes of meat, if they can score a bulls-eye on the target.
  It’s sheer genius.
  Robert Straub, meat shoot chairperson from the lodge, organizes meat shoots about three or four times in the spring and as many as eight times during the fall hunting season, when shooters obviously would benefit from additional target practice.
  “The goal is simple — shoot a cardboard target as close to the bulls-eye as possible,” the newspaper story related. “Not only does the event ease the burden of a grocery bill, it also provides residents with entertainment on a Sunday.”
  ...
  The fee at this contest was $2 a shot, with only “approved” shotguns allowed, and to ensure fairness, all shells provided by the Moose Lodge. The entrants were permitted to purchase as many shots as they wanted in an attempt to win the meat prizes, which ranged from slabs of bacon to boxes of ground beef patties to cases of pork chops or steaks.
10. "Best of St. Louis 2007 | Sports & Recreation: Best Meat Shoot". The Riverfront Times. 2007. Archived from the original on 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
  The article notes:
  
  They come with their twelve-gauge shotguns and form long lines to plunk down three bucks and spray a round at a paper target hanging 30 or so feet away. The closest to the "X" brings home the bacon, pork steaks, loins, ribs and other cuts of pig, not to mention roast beef. The shoot starts at noon and ends fourteen or fifteen rounds later, when the beer coolers empty and the sun sets.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow meat shoot to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit per the sources – Comfortably passes WP:GNG, as per the diligent source research performed by Arxiloxos and Cunard above. Sources examples include, but are not limited to: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely needs work on expansion and sourcing, but the sources as shown by Cunard and NA show that it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of North America's sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only thing that is sourced is and I quote: "Meat shoots are commonly mistaken as block shoots, ham shoots, turkey shoots, etc. This is, however, a misnomer." Also, it looks like it is just a gameplay strategy and violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other users have mentioned there are reliable sources about this, they just need to be added to the page. It seems to be a semi-popular activity in rural parts of America.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided above. As WP:GNG is satisfied, the only question is WP:TNT, and while the article is poor, it doesn't look to require blowing up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all except absition. All the articles listed here, with the exception of Absition, are found to not be notable. As to the proper naming of Absition, this is not the forum for such activities, please be WP:BOLD if you wish to see the name changed, or discuss it on the article's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absition[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable neologism. Seems to have been made up by Steve Mann a couple of years ago, but hasn't entered into any kind of common usage. Kolbasz (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Kolbasz (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all doesn't appear to have attained notability yet. Seems to only be used in the odd blog or forum. Another option would be to move them to draft. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I have managed to trace this to a single blog [11] where the "about" page does not give an actual name but says: "I am a solitary chronicler and student of Theoretical Physics, Mathematics and Science in the Cyberspace". All of the articles are by the same editor; I have no idea their connection to the blog author, but none of this is verifiable in a reliable source. Note that I can find occasional uses of the term in scholarly articles, but not in the sense meant here. Scholar search. Some of the uses are actually OCR errors. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absition, Delete the others I think the others should definitely be deleted because they have no physical manifestation, while absition does. Even if not very much on it exists, absition is still closely related to conventional physics. The articles for position/displacement, velocity, and acceleration themselves are relatively short and lacking in references. I want to expand this article with more information and references, possibly from textbooks. JoshBM16 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename absition to absement, delete the others. Absition at least describes an application and according to the table below we have 3 articles on absement fulfilling WP:GNG criteria (although not many more such sources exist). The others (absity...) are just definitions without suggesting why such quantity should be considered. Petr Matas 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC). Update: Petr Matas 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: clarity reqd for absition Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These appear to be concepts in physics that have not been widely recognized and may have appeared in only a few articles so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename absition to absement, and delete the others (after including their relevant material in the absement article). There are numerous recent scientific and academic references to absement in credible IEEE, ACM, etc., conferences and journal articles, and some of these have now been added as references to the Absition article. For example, important scientific discoveries based on absement have been made in mechanical and electrical modeling and systems. New absement-based concepts include "strain absement", the time-integral of strain, [Bratland etal. 2015] which provides a new way of modeling the hysteretic response of springs, and considering periodicity in terms of absement as a function of displacement. Jeltsema 2012 and Pei 2015 provide extensive contributions to absement-based modeling of electric circuits. Glogger (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous? After stripping away OCR errors and typos ("abasement"), I can find only two non-Mann articles on Scholar using the word. Not nearly enough for notability. Kolbasz (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that to qualify for a standalone article, we must have references, which simultaneously fulfill three criteria. Here are our sources with their scoring with respect to the criteria: Petr Matas 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

independent of each other, or of the original proponent of the article (Roybook), or of the earliest article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glogger (talk • contribs)

One of the latter two options. I would regard Mann as the primary source, and secondary sources unaffiliated with him as independent. Petr Matas 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absement sources. Feel free to edit!
Source	Significant coverage	Reliable	Independent
Pei 2015	Y	Y	Y
Jeltsema 2012	Y	Y	Y
Dietz 2014	?	Y	Y
Bratland 2014	Y	Y	Y
Mann etal. 2006	Y	Y	N
Janzen etal. 2014	?	Y	N
Harbourfront Centre, 2008	Y	?	N
Bell 2013	N	?	Y
Sarvis, 2014	Y	?	Y
Burhanpurkar 2013	Y	?	Y

Maybe Glogger could fill in the "Significant coverage" column? Petr Matas 19:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bell has a tick in "significant coverage" despite not using the term at all? Kolbasz (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Also setting Mann, Janzen (coauthor of Mann etal. 2006), and Harbourfront (about hydraulophone) as not independent. Petr Matas 21:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article but consolidate all material on the time-integral of displacement. If we deleted this article, then by logic we'd also have to delete the articles on velocity, acceleration, and jerk (physics), which are other taxonomically equivalent kinematic quantities (derivatives and integrals of displacement). If someone can find a different page on "time-integral of displacement" then we can move to that one. Otherwise, this is it. --Rianoj 23:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking WP:Notability. Cited material can be moved to hydraulophone page. Ma7ged (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the hydraulophone application could be moved to Hydraulophone, but the physical concept of displacement integral should be described in an article on motion. Nobody is going to look for it in Hydraulophone. Petr Matas 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there Wikipedia articles for EACH OF Snap, Crackle, and Pop (4th, 5th, and 6th derivates)? For example, it seems there's just one reference in the Crackle article, and it appears not to be a peer-reviewed journal or conference article: Christopher Richard (1990). Experiments in high-performance nonlinear and adaptive control of a two-link, flexible-drive-train manipulator. Stanford University. p. 81. Retrieved 8 November 2015. Jerk is the technical term for the third derivative of position- snap, crackle, and pop correspond to the fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position. If we can go that high in derivatives (by that far up, there's mostly noise, and very little signal, e.g. if we think in terms of power spectrum), but can't have integrals of position (which tend to have good signal integrity), we seem to have a one-sided half-truth here.99.231.161.92 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to get them to AfD as well if they're not notable. Kolbasz (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Theory preludes application. This article well documents some of the research on integral kinematics. It is important to keep this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesuperhorse (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Thesuperhorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we opt to keep topics like the Derivative of Displacement, or Velocity, then we must keep the Integral of Displacement, or Absition (Absement). Kinematics is in this context an incomplete half-truth if we only consider distance and its derivatives. The completeness and integrity of kinematics requires we also consider distance and its integrals: both sides, with distance in the middle!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magogplums (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) — Magogplums (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP doesn't usually concern itself with a "fairness" between integrals and derivatives of kinematic concepts. If notable sources continue their discrimination against integrals, the injustice shouldn't be redressed here. Magedq (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep this article. It is an important contribution to fundamental physics and the design of any technology that displaces a fluid" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absement (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) — Absement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at AfD (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Citations for Integral of distance (Absement, Absition) are gradually increasing in frequency. New concepts are typically slow to be cited but build up over time as was the case historically with the derivatives of displacement (velocity, acceleration, etc). The absence of citations for new concepts is in itself is no cause for their removal. Integrals of displacement should fundamentally be no less meaningful and impactful over time than the derivatives of displacement. Potshs (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Potshs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at AfD (UTC).[reply]
Comment: We're up to 4 SPAs now. Anyone able to figure out where they're all coming from? Kolbasz (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term inventor asks his students to contribute to saving "his" articles. Note, many non-SPAs here also edit only Mann-lab articles. Comment46 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even as a supporter of keeping the article it's annoying. I think consensus should defitely give little (or no) weight to what the SPAs and Mann-ed (get it) accounts. JoshBM16 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fit any reason for deletion, plus is cited in scholarly articles, clearly real scientific contribution.Petelogger (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) — Petelogger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; the nomination is proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Electrics (Northern Rail)[edit]

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

Sub-brand for set of services, the details for which would be better merged into the Northern Rail article; not notable in its own right in my view (Northern don't seem to refer to these services as 'Northern Electrics' in their own communications, though not sure if they did when first launched). Mike1901 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an argument being made here for deletion. The content is significant, sourceable, and relevant to Northern Rail. Merger may well be warranted but this doesn't appear to belong at AfD. I suggest a speedy close and instead discuss merger on the article talk page. See WP:SKCRIT #1. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that, and apologies. I suggested it here as a lot of the content within the article (though not all) isn't notable in any case, and was proposing to merge the remainder. Happy to take the merge discussion back to the article talk page, and consequently withdraw this AfD nomination, if that is the consensus. Mike1901 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Northern Rail Seasider91 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tons of sources on Google not to mention those below, Obvious Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jigyasa Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Article is unreferenced. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the following sources: [12], [13], [14] as well as the many in-depth to be found about this subject. However, the article needs a lot of clean-up, and the phrase "Cute and young Jigyasa is a new comer in Indian Television who managed to grab various hearts within a very short span of her career." appears to be a copyvio. But otherwise, this article should not be deleted by any means. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 02:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what EditorE said. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @EditorE: The article is unreferenced and the information about the person in the article can be incorrect so It should be deleted. Also see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules--Musa^Talk ☻ 12:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Musa Raza: Where in the bloody nine regions of hell have you been playing at? The Wikipedia:Ignore all rules card I think you trying to play here does not work. Yes, this article is unreferenced and the unsourced information could be false, but given the reliable sources that I've shown, that is no reason for deleting an article. Articles for deletion is mean for discussion on whether articles should be kept based on its notability. It's not meant for use as a clean-up tag. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 22:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Lagos[edit]

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

Musician of questionable notability. He was a member of Stick to Your Guns but I can't find any significant coverage to prove he is notable in his own right for his involvement with that group or for his work since. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The article has been tagged as possible OR since 2010. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this suggests better and linking to the band article is questionable if deletion is actually a better option. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this one early per WP:SNOW. A search shows that this is a very recently released self-published novel with no coverage in reliable sources independent of the e-commerce sites or author. There's no sense in dragging this out until the 26th, given that it's unlikely to close any other way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Out Of Time[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable novel. Only relevant hits I could find are the book's website, and Amazon. The rest are false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is self-published. ubiquity (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Found no RS. None. No claim of notability. Self-published E-book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ereira-Guyer[edit]

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

Parliamentary candidate on several occasions, but never elected. Holding a seat on a local council does not confer notablility. Nothing in his business/charity work that seems to warrant an article under WP:N. Most reference refer to his selections and other party activities. Link to Telegraph article now appears dead. Frinton100 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highest elected office to date is to a regional council a section of Bury St Edmunds a wonderful place, but pop. ~40,0000, and he doesn't represent all of it. He has stood for Parliament, but has not won. And I cannot find significant [15] profiles or detailed coverage, nothing really beyond routine, local political coverage. Flag me if I've missed something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN local councillor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that passes WP:NPOL — a person at this level of political office can get into Wikipedia if the article can be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. The sourcing here is disproportionately dependent on primary source confirmation of his existence on the website of his political party, self-published sources like his own LinkedIn profile, raw tables of election results and other sources that cannot count toward GNG — and while there are a few legitimately reliable sources in the mix too, there aren't enough of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Gwóźdź[edit]

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

nn musician Staszek Lem (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rather tentatively. I do not speak either Silesian or Polish, but based on some work with google translate, it seems to me that these websites 1, 2, 3, 4 are independent of the subject and offer substantive coverage, enough for a stub, in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if this can be better improved. Notifying Piotrus for further Polish analysis. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (and @SwisterTwister:) The coverage is rather sparse, through I also found an interview. Still, I don't think he passes GNG due to few mentions in passing by the media, nor as a poet. This one is in-depth, somewhat, but it's local/regional. Can someone comment on how Tamte Czasy (Karol Gwóźdź album) helps him pass WP:NMUSIC? Overall seems rather borderline. Unfortunately User:Staszek Lem did not provide a proper rationale for deletion (WP:ITSNOTABLE), and I just don't have time to do it for him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus:, what is your opinion of the sources I provided above? I have not the knowledge to evaluate them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - [16] is a reliable newspaper, but he is mentioned in passing (in two paragraphs); he is illustrating the article as one of the examples, not the other way around. Ditto for [17] and [18]. He, or his project, is the main feature of [19], which is the best source, but the article doesn't talk as much about him as about his soccer t-shirt collection. The presented sources are really borderline; I'd say that if he does not pass NMUSIC, he is not notable due to the few newspaper mentions not sufficing for GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for assessing added sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HYPE Innovation[edit]

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

Speedy contested by creator without any real argument as to why this should be kept. Non notable company IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as there is some coverage listed but this is questionable so WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see enough in-depth coverage in searches to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brandwood[edit]

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

Unremarkable local councillor, see WP:POLOUTCOMES Gbawden (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:TOOSOON. This article reminded me of a Harvard student who made a flurry many years ago being the youngest legislator in New Hampshire, so I googled, he popped right up: [20]. (he appears not to have won, to have been the youngest candidate merely, memory is fallible) Actually, a lot of "youngest elected" hits pop up in a quick search: [21], [22]. I say, more power to them. However, looking at my news google search on Joshua Brandwood [23] persuades me that being the "youngest" elected is not the same as having enough notability to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is being the youngest ever councillor on a minor town council. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Youngest person ever to hold an otherwise non-notable office" is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — every single municipal council on this entire planet will always have had its own youngest-ever member, as well as the lingering possibility of a new even-younger member coming along in the future to outyouth the first one, so it's a total non-starter as evidence of encyclopedic notability in and of itself. And that goes double if you have to park the article entirely on primary source verification of his existence rather than reliable source coverage of his work. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Anderson (musician)[edit]

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

Facebook and Intelius do not count towards notability; the other sources listed (Jesusfreakhideout, The Ithaca Growler, 365 Days of Inspiring Media, etc.) do not appear to have sufficiently wide readership base to be considered reliable measures of notability. Dream Records is not a sufficiently big label to sign with. KDS4444^Talk 12:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This musician is notable per No. 1, where his music has been covered in two reviews by Jesus Freak Hideout, a review by 365 Days of Inspiring Media, and one in Hallels. Where they are found on the Christian music sources list to prove general notability has been achieved by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject themselves.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I found an interview in Hallels, and worked it into the article.The Cross Bearer (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to ping some other editors who have monitored by stuff on a regular basis with regards to this artist deletion discussion, who are @Wgolf and SwisterTwister:. I am going to ping some other editors in the CCM project, who are @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Metalworker14, and Walter Görlitz:.
Keep. The sources look reliable enough to me, although I think the Facebook stuff should be relegated to an external link. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook about page link is directly related to showing what his date-of-birth (dob) is, or else I could prove it by using a tweet from his official website linked Twitter account, per self sourcing.The Cross Bearer (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Facebook isn't the best source, it is acceptable unless you're planning to go to GA or whatever with an article. I still think the article should be kept because the news sources prove notability. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs a More Legitimate Source.CalabJessika (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I hope you clarify your remarks above.The Cross Bearer (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cross Bearer:, I really don't think a brand-new editor like CalabJessika is even qualified to vote on AfDs. I actually thought that to vote on them editors needed to be autoconfirmed. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the least bit worried about their vote, while I hope someone can explain to me the relevant policy with regards to this matter.The Cross Bearer (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the Teahouse, I was told that votes by people who do not use proper procedure are not counted. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for the retention of this article are not based in any policy; whereas, those requesting deletion have shown how the article is void of any actual reliable sources, and is borderline if not total WP:OR. Therefore, the article's subject is found to be non-notable, and unsuitable for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samra[edit]

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

This has been restored per a request at WP:REFUND by Kulveer. That request just indicates their continued unwillingness or inability to accept consensus about such issues as verifiability, use of primary sources, use of reliable sources, synthesis/original research etc.

I trimmed back the undeletion and have now self-reverted for this AfD - I think it might benefit any reviewers here to at least check out the history since undeletion, where my edit summaries should mostly be self-explanatory. Kulveer's history in relation to this article might also bear examination.

The subject certainly does exist as a name and perhaps there is indeed a cluster of the name in one tiny area of India but it woefully fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the main contention of Sitush is that 'Sumra' as referred in various sources and 'Samra' are not talking about the same tribe and on this contention he deleted all cited references to 'Sumra' or 'Sumrah'. However, the tribe is called in Hindi and Punjabi as SaM (rhyming with 'Gum')-Ra (rhyming with Baa Baa of Ba Ba Black sheep fame); and while transliterating their surname in English script, some members chose the phonetically similar spellings of Sum-Ra. Moreover, the Britishers and Indians had different ways of spelling almost everything (Examples - Punjab:Panjab, Jeypore:Jaipur, Ajmer: Ajmeyre, Singh:Sing, Ganga: Ganges, the list is endless). Hence, there should have been no reason to deleted H.A.Rose or the Punjab Gazetteer citations, which are good sources and have been deleted only because of the phonetic confusion between Sumra and Samra. Secondly, a contention of Sitush is with regard to references to James Tod and Magasthenes both of which are widely read and taught sources in India, and both of them are supposedly 'unreliable sources' as per Wikipedia standards. I beg you to review the two gentlemen. Magasthenes (an ancient greek traveller), Hsüan-tsang and Fa-Hien are three ancient travellers to India and form the back-ground for a substantial historical narrative of India and to discard one of them completely seems a bit odd; I wonder if discarding Magasthenes altogether could result in revision of India's entire history. Thirdly, all references to notable personalities have been removed citing lack of references, while I have cited links to Outlook magazine, official list of Mahavir Chakra Winners, MLAs etc. All such personalities are verifiable. Lastly and humbly, without resorting to any hyperbole, I think the deletion of the page is due to lack of knowledge of ground conditions. Samra is not JUST a name or a surname, it is a tribe spread across north Indian sub-continent. An encyclopedia ought to document such lesser known tribes (there might be reams of pages on larger tribes, we don't serve any archival purpose by documenting them); and if this tribe's page is deleted, wikipedia administrators might consider a policy for deletion of all pages of such tribes/ clans across the world. Kulveer (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments seem to be pure original research and a misunderstanding of consensus regarding Raj source etc, sorry. Please also note WP:OSE - that other poor articles might exist is not a reason to keep this one. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 04:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've requested that Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) also restore the talk page of this article as the discussions there would presumably help the rest of us to understand the issues behind this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the talk page, which includes statements by Sitush and Kulveer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This seems to be the same topic as Soomra and Soomro. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. This looks like yet another case of you wading into the caste arena about which you still seem to know nothing. I've explained to you in the past that we cannot make these leaps of faith due to issues such as transliteration, variant native spellings and the existence of communities across India that appear to bear the same name but are in fact distinct. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia states 'The word "Samra" has been corrupted into "Soomra"'. Such issues of transliteration are quite routine and common. They are not an adequate reason to delete because we commonly retain alternate spellings as redirects, rather than deleting them. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you've been told before that source and similar Raj sources are not reliable. You've got to stop this seemingly intransigent inclusionism on caste-related stuff - it just burns a lot of time for everyone else and you seem to "lose" on every occasion, at least where I'm a participant. Sorry, Andrew, but you just do not understand and/or are unwilling to understand the consensus. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Balfour to be a respectable and sufficiently reliable source for this purpose. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you do. And every time you raise those Raj sources you are shown to be incorrect. Learn, please. We've got enough problems with caste articles without getting sidetracked by intelligent, experienced contributors who go into IDHT mode. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, Sitush has violated the behavioural guidelines of WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON. I would not trouble to respond but, unfortunately, there is a risk that failure to respond might be taken as acquiescence and so on we go. The general issue here is that there are numerous clan and family names in India. We maintain pages for the Western equivalents such as Clan Davidson and Davidson (name). To systematically erase the South Asian cases seems to be systemic bias. Sources such as Balfour seem adequate evidence that there is some encyclopaedic notability here and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep doing what I do until you are topic banned from these discussions. You are a massive timesink in this area. And if you don't like that then take me to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking English language sources for this tribe, I don't see how we can have an article on it. It appears that there are no non-English language sources either, just the opinion of an editor. That doesn't cut it. Also, re the discussion above, Magasthenes, Hsüan-tsang, Fa-Hien, Ibn Batuta or Niccolao Manucci cannot be used as sources. Anything that they say that is of importance should be easily sourced to a contemporary source, almost certainly an academic one. I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that we should use Magasthenes as a direct source. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Megasthenes be used as a direct source when I have linked to his book in Original Greek as well? A lot of Indian History is derived from what he wrote, do we debunk the entire history? Please elaborate. Secondly, Sitush had even deleted all Indian sources of notable Samra personalities, even though they had been referred from reputed magazines and original list of Mahavir Chakra winners, certainly shows a disproportionate deletion amounting to vandalism. Kulveer (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per RegentsPark. We cannot have an article that is based on hearsay, rather than reliable sources, and I see no evidence of reliable sources being produced any time soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the cited sources like Rose, Official Gazetteer can be bundled as 'hearsay'. Of course, Megasthenes and James Tod too are by no means 'hearsay'. I think the deletions by Sitush of all caste related articles of India are doing a disservice to the archival of Indian history and point to a personal bais. I am not an editor and am not aware of all your rules but I have been objective in collecting sources and writing the text. Surnames are to India what clans and blood-lines are to rest of world. Debunking this entire field of study by debunking sources like James Tod seems a bit Talibanese to me. Kulveer (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: Simply, not notable in the light of sources present in the article.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to an ignorant soul like me how the official gazette of British India can be termed as 'not notable'; how Megasthenes who forms the bed-rock of Indian historical narrative (with other travellers like Fa-Hien etc) can be termed as 'not notable'. James Tod has been listed as 'not notable' perhaps by Wikipedia editors; perhaps the discussion needs to be re-started there as well as to how a book that is widely accepted by academicians and universtities of India as an honest narrative has been debunked on Wikipedia. Kulveer (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Strong Keep, What counts as notable, a single sentence article? Filpro (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyChair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. This page is an advertisement for a software product used in technical conferences. Several years after the original AfD there are still no reliable sources to support the claim that it is "used extensively", and no other indications of notability. There are plenty of similar products out there. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence would be easy to provide by partly reverting an earlier edit. Before this edit, there was a list of notable conference using EasyChair, as to provide evidence for the extensive use. A lot of computer science conferences now have Wikipedia articles, so it would be easy to check the homepages of some (or all) of them to see whether they use EasyChair as their submission system. However please note that I'm not going to do so now, as I'm not sure it would be the kind of evidence that you, @Andyjsmith are expecting. --Langec (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting anything other than a reasonable discussion. Are you saying that you know of reliable sources that prove notability but you're going to keep them to yourself? the fact that a few notable conferences used this software does not bestow notability on the software any more than it bestows notability on the brand of toilet paper they used. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. The article is missing sources only because the nominator has removed them from the article, they should be reinstated. —Ruud 10:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then please reinstate them, or at least give an example of what you mean. I've looked back at earlier versions and I can't find anything that indicates notability, just a few examples of use - which you could find for pretty much any product you care to mention. Andyjsmith (talk)

Keep. It's extremely widely used in computer science - it's essentially used by all conferences and workshops in my field. I was able to find and add two Springer-published academic sources that discuss or mention it with little effort. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or mention elsewhere at best as there seems to be acceptable sourcing and if further is available....but if not, mention elsewhere. Notifying the only still active AfDer DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship of Nanteuil[edit]

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

This article is a poorly written OR made from amalgamated sources with little or no connections with each others and none specifically centered on the subject. It seems very little can be safegarded. It contains obvious factual inaccuracies, misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text and previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Phso2 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article is hoax.--Yopie (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT as inaccurate and untrustworthy. All Creator's edits, and particularly article creations, are suspect. Creator has been blocked on wikipedia sites so far, including this one. In the case of this article, the source does not say that Roger was Seigneur. The deed that the source quotes from is here, and by my gtranslated reading suggests that Roger was actually a Benedictine. This source suggests that Thibaud (rather than Raoul per the linked source) was first Seigneur, but that's neither here nor there. The pattern appears to be that where there isn't outright WP:HOAXing there's inaccurate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:COPYVIO (in the case of this article, per User_talk:Alec_Smithson#Lordship_of_Nanteuil, the article was allegedly translated with additions from another wikipedia but user has not added the translated template as requested. I say "allegedly" because "Signoria de Nanteuil" or anything similar does not appear to have ever been on the Italian one).^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation with properly sourced encyclopaedic content. TNT is the best approach here. This is a typical Alec Smithson fabrication, a concoction of fact, fantasy and wishful thinking assembled with the aim of establishing that the Sicilian Natoli family were related to the French Nanteuil family. Editor time is a precious resource; we shouldn't waste any on trying to sift the few grains of wheat from all the chaff here.

General note: unfortunately this only one of many articles by this user. I'm slowly working through them, and keeping an informal record here. Any help would be welcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There might be something to rescue as history of Nanteuil, in or associated with the place that was the caput of the lordship. However Seigneur is not a title of nobility, so that we could only keep it as the history of the place. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kilgore[edit]

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

Believe that he fails WP:MUSICBIO. Seems to be famous for being Stevie Wonders' sax player. Don't believe that is enough, nor is sharing the stage with famous people Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and it's worth noting I've never even heard of him and I'm quite knowledgeable and also none of this suggests even minimally better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Delete for now at best and restart if better sourcing is available, SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Grateful Dead Album[edit]

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

Believe that this fails WP:NALBUM - album seems to have been planned but never released Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: The Grateful Dead FAQ (at least 4 pages, likely more), Rolling Stone, Relix magazine, The Daily Courier (around 5 paragraphs), Observer-Reporter (1 short paragraph). Another option is to merge to Grateful Dead § Aftermath (1995 to the present), which presently does not mention this aspect of the band. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being released is not a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Sources like Rolling Stone cover it in pretty good detail. The article needs a complete rewrite (and probably a rename - if no other reason, because "album" shouldn't be capitalized) but the idea itself has enough coverage to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets the general notability guideline, as it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NALBUMS, in talking about "unreleased material", doesn't seem to distinguish between albums that are planned for future release and those, like this one, that are not. But it says, "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." That is the case here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carac Allison[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR as his only listed title was an e-book. Even more importantly, there's not a shred of reliable source coverage to be found here — the referencing is parked entirely on primary sources and blogs. Article was previously prodded twice for lacking a substantive claim of notability, and then recreated a third time; the third iteration was tagged for {{notability}}, but then an anonymous IP removed that with the edit summary "notable" but no improvement in the evidence or sourcing for that. So as much as I'm tempted to speedy it a third time, it really is a matter for AFD this time. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists; substantive coverage in media sources independent of the topic's own PR machine must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the listed sources are simply not convincing enough. Restart later at best if better available. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, a search brings up nothing useable only sites such as goodreads and amazon, article created in June 2015 by a blocked user (not in itself a problem but...), as nom mentioned tags removed in June 2015 by a spa who did not improve the article, it hasn't been improved since, subjects website - [24] has nothing which could assist in leading to anything of benefit to this article.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estee Applauder[edit]

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

Delete: insufficient notability. Fails WP:GNG as Google search turned up nothing but mirror sites with exact same info. Quis separabit? 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. gnews only refers to one source. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philippe Aigrain. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing (book)[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources showing that the subject passes WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps redirect to Philippe Aigrain if needed as this is unlikely better notable as shown by my searches and even Philippe's article currently seems questionable, but if notable and improved, his article can be kept and this be linked there if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author, who is mildly notable, until there is more information or someone wants to work on finding it. The book is in about 600 WorldCat libraries and was published first in French and then in English translation. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (redirects can be created later). Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft clone[edit]

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

Article does not prove notability and is not covered by reliable sources. "Minecraft clones" aren't notable and Terraria isn't a Minecraft clone... Ana r chyte 10:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ana r chyte 10:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Minecraft#Popular culture and social media, which has some mention of notable "clones". There are many hits in WP:VG/RS, but all are about some other game(s) being compared to Minecraft and called "clones". In other words, the topic does not pass WP:GNG with multiple in-depth sources, where the topic if the subject of the sources. Closest is something like [25]. There are definitely some good sources for material in the main article, but not enough content for a WP:SPLIT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (CSD A10) and redirect — There are "Minecraft clones" out there which may have or achieve WP:NOTABILITY, but I doubt that there is currently enough depth to the topic to justify its own article. Any good content on the topic should first be developed as a sub-section of the main Minecraft article (there is already some content there), which could later be split off into a standalone article if it proves to be a sufficiently large topic. So, speedy A10 on the basis of duplication, and agree on failure to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY for the article, as currently written. Talk:Minecraft is the correct place to discuss future development and expansion of this sub-topic, and the sub-topic is certainly suitable for inclusion in the main article (subject to normal content guidelines). --Murph9000 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better dealt with in the main article. Artw (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Redirect, perfectly good redirect that shouldn't just be deleted.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft or Survival game. It's a legit search term, but we don't have a body of information as compared to GTA clone. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Heal[edit]

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

BLP with no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested prod blp (without adding any sources whatsoever). I escalated to AfD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only source provided is his own website. So any notability claims have not been verified. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also the username of the major contributor suggests a connection.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María Belén Cabrera[edit]

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

Local winner of a preliminary round that did not place in Miss Earth. The event she won does not warrant a page so no where to redirect. Fails WP:NMODEL. Primary sourcing to Facebook photos. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little evidence of GNG, notable only for a single event. Search results are absolutely clogged witH subject's social networking sites/self published stuff/blogs, very, very little to support GNG. Mabalu (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NMODEL, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleka Stratigou[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - There's tons of books under her English name [26] and tons of News articles under her Greek name [27].... Was WP:BEFORE even followed? .... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had prominent roles in at least 16 films so I believe passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 01:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total Exposure (movie)[edit]

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

Even with very specific search parameters, "total exposure" has significantly more hits than it's capitalised counterpart. The only actual websites I could find regarding this film are from unreliable sources such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. This film existed, but does not seem to have become a notable film. While I appreciate the creator's enthusiasm for creating new articles on Wikipedia, I highly recommend they read through the notability guidelines before starting more articles. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominated stub was easy to begin fixing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts for Total Exposure:

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

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

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

Split and consider each film separately. I can't divine any reason for these films to be bundled--they have different directors, different casts, and different potential sources--and they should be considered separately. Since bundling like this also has the tendency to reduce the visibility of the AfDs for the additional films, I request the nominator to please revert the bundling and open a separate AfD for each film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done. Please see AVtK and BG(m). The appropriate comments have been kept on their respective discussions. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only "reason" is that they are very poorly formatted by inexperienced contributor User:RavenGlamDVDCollector. I agree... spilt and deal with each unique topic separately. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a substantive TV Guide review [28], a brief and yet incisive ("Total idiocy involving unclad babes and hormonally imbalanced men in blackmail and murder.") review from VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever [29] , and (for whatever it's worth) a two-sentence mention in a 1991 column on cut-rate videos [30] It ain't No Country For Old Men, but it's a notable cast and I suspect that this may ultimately pass our usual standards for such films, but for the moment I will reserve my opinion to see if something more definitive turns up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability establish-able even with the lack of BEFORE. However, the article author really needs to get some training. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parthiv Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can clean it up and keep it.Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the article may well be worth keeping if only someone were to add enough inline citations.Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and his organisation which he founded Centre for Media and Alternative Communication does not have a corresponding article WP:WTAF and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City FM 92[edit]

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

No notability shown, mainly promotional. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly promotional, nothing that seems like a reliable source on Google thus calling into question whether WP:GNG or WP:NCORP is met. Also, it doesn't look like any of the current sources actually mention the group.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet radio streams do not get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA just because they exist — it's possible for one to get over the bar if there's enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:GNG, but we're not a free advertising platform for streams that don't have that. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as radio stations often are kept as notable but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing due to explanation below. Mdann52 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Achom[edit]

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

Suspected hoax reported on my talk page, rational was "I would like to draw your attention to this wikipedia article Frederick Achom, at first look it looks like a good article, but it hides most of the real information. If you see article's history you will see that it has been under several editing wars. Almost all claims made in the article are supported in the article are made using own links or PR releases. Also the links which seem genuine like London's 1000 most influential people 2010: Night OwlsLondon's 1000 most influential people 2011: Night Owls have many things wrong in them- they claim to be 1000 but not more than 6 are present; they have no author. They are off the website but somehow have crept into the website. There are many such cases in this wiki article." Mdann52 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: User:Mdann52, suggest withdrawing nomination and closing. London Evening Standard is a sufficiently reliable newspaper for the purpose, and the "Night Owls" is a subcategory of identified notable Londoners. Subject has notability, whatever the deficiencies of the article, and the article is under discussion for repair at Talk:Frederick_Achom#Completely_False_Article_Frederick_Achom, where User:NihartouJason is now proposing an alternative version in Draft. Cheers ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are sources, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether they are of sufficient quality to put this over the notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Biologics[edit]

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

The firm has not yet marketed any products. I cannot see the purpose of this except for promotion. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly better than a few links but almost entirely PR at News and browsers, not yet salvageable. Notifying tagger Macrakis. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, @DGG:, I believe this is a mistake. This is a publicly traded company trading on the NASDAQ Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, the second largest exchange in the world by market capitalization, per WP:LISTED these are inherently notable. A source check confirms an overabundance of sources [31]. It requires many sources before a company can be listed on the NASDAQ (there notability requirements are higher than ours). The pharmaceutical industry often generates revenue based on venture capitalism for drug research before a product is released. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, have you found any substantive third-party sources for this company in the past week? That is, not based on press releases, and not the usual stock-market chatter? --Macrakis (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "an overabundance of sources": Heat Biologics gets 220; I get 148. I do not claim that means I warrant a WP article --Macrakis (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~

WP:LISTED explicitly says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case."
The article itself provides only references to publications by its affiliates, including both scientific articles and press releases.
The search results you cite are all routine stock market notices and stock analyst mentions.
NASDAQ does not have "notability" requirements. It has capital requirements, etc., but not notability requirements. NASDAQ is a stock exchange, not an encyclopedia. The total capitalization of stocks on NASDAQ proves nothing at all about the notability of any individual company listed there.
Generating revenue is also not an indication of notability.
This editor has created a series of articles about related companies and people (smells like WP:COI, but that's another matter...) none of which include any evidence of notability according to our standards. I have tagged most of them with "Third-party" in the expectation that some indication of notability can be found. But the editor does not seem to be paying attention to those tags. Let's hope this AFD prompts him or her to add some solid third-party references. --Macrakis (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an expert in this field working in the industry for 7 years. NASDAQ is notable, and capital requirements is a good judge of notability. Yes there are some press releases, but that does not deny the solid sources. I believe the confusion here is between NASDAQ and OTC markets, the latter is not notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was responsible for data quality about public and private companies at a financial services firm for several years, so I am not confusing NASDAQ and OTC. I am simply asking that we apply our existing, well-documented notability policies to this company. It may well be true that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for this company and the other companies added by User:OzBioMan, in which case, let's find it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand our customary practice, LISTED applies only to the main board of the NYSE and corresponding boards in other countries. I do not challenge for notability companies on the main NYSE, non-notable as I may think them in reality. It has never been applied to NASDAQ and similar--some companies there are notable--it is not an absolute disqualification, but most of them are not. Similarly, generating revenue beyond a certain amount is an indication of likely notability -- beyond, say, $100 million a year; below that figure is certainly possible, but not automatic. Attracting money by venture capitalization is not generating revenue, it's providing capital from which it is hoped that revenue may be generated in the future (but most of time, it never is, which is why it's called venture capitalism) . DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
1. di Stefano, Sharon (2015-04-14). "Heat Biologics Is An Opportunity Among Soaring Immunotherapy Biotech Valuations". Seeking Alpha. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
2. Vinluan, Frank (2015-03-11). "Heat Biologics Launches $10M Stock Offering; CFO To Move On". Xconomy. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
3. "Heat Biologics Posts Wider Loss Y/Y, Focus on Pipeline". Zacks Investment Research. 2015-03-30. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
4. Ranii, David (2014-08-21). "Heat Biologics shares jump 28 percent". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
5. Bracken, David (2015-02-18). "Heat Biologics shares rise on news of collaboration". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
6. Ranii, David (2014-08-25). "Heat Biologics obtains $7.5 million in financing". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
7. Bracken, David (2015-03-27). "Heat Biologics reports $11.8M loss in 2014". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
8. Vinluan, Frank (2012-01-12). "Vaccine biotech Heat Biologics lands $250K; plans trials for bladder, ovarian cancers". MedCity News. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Heat Biologics was spun out of the University of Miami in 2008. The company last year relocated to North Carolina, though it still maintains a research facility at the University of Miami Life Science Park. The company’s technology has applications beyond cancers. Heat is also conducting preclinical research of its technology as a possible HIV treatment. The company has received National Institutes of Health funding to support the HIV research.
9. Heat Biologics is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
  http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/analystResearch?symbol=HTBX.OQ^WebCite lists several analyst reports about Heat Biologics:
  1. Published 9 January 2016 by ValuEngine (11 pages). "ValuEngine Rating and Forecast Report for HTBX."
  2. Published 8 January 2016 by Pechala's Reports (2 pages). "HEAT BIOLOGICS INC (HTBX=US) - SHORT AND LONG TERM FORECASTS FOR ACTIVE TRADERS."
  3. Published 8 January 2016 by Reuters Investment Profile (12 pages). "Heat Biologics Inc: Business description, financial summary, 3yr and interim financials, key statistics/ratios and historical ratio analysis."
  4. Published 8 January 2016 by Thomson Reuters Stock Report (11 pages). "Thomson Reuters Stock Report - Heat Biologics Inc (HTBX-O)."
  5. Published 14 December 2015 by GlobalData (46 pages). "Heat Biologics, Inc. (HTBX) - Financial Analysis Review."
  6. Published 13 November 2015 by Pechala's Reports (2 pages). "HEAT BIOLOGICS INC (HTBX=US) - SHORT AND LONG TERM FORECASTS FOR ACTIVE TRADERS."
10. Morningstar, Inc. also has an analyst report under a paywall at http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNAS/HTBX/quote.html.
11. Zacks Investment Research has^WebCite numerous analyst reports about Heat Biologics.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heat Biologics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - simply put, a company which currently sells no products on the open market and has none even in phase 3. There's a good shot they'll be taken over before they sell anything if they ever do come up with the goods. There is some news coverage though. They are Nasdaq-listed, but that doesn't automatically mean very interesting: so are 3000 other companies. It's not like they're on the NASDAQ-100 or another index of major companies. Blythwood (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument for deletion is at odds with the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding): "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
The 12-page Reuters Investment Profile analyst report, the 46-page GlobalData analyst report, and the 11-page Thomson Reuters analyst report are "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources".
The guideline says "analyst reports" are acceptable sources, and I've shown here that Heat Biologics has received substantial coverage from analyst reports.
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SwisterTwister (talk · contribs). Would you take a look at the analyst reports I've linked here? Cunard (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm frankly not certain as it's some coverage but I'm also not fully convinced. Notifying nominator DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, the "some coverage" is a 12-page Reuters Investment Profile analyst report, a 46-page GlobalData analyst report, and an 11-page Thomson Reuters analyst report. Why are you "not fully convinced"?
DGG wrote in another AfD:
Personally, I think our inclusion criteria for many sports are a considerably too low in some respects, and would like to see them increased. But I do not mistake my wishes for what our guidelines ought to be, for the actual accepted guidelines. And if I wanted to change them I would go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD. I don't do that because 1/ it is not a high priority for me, and 2/I think the consensus does agree with our relative unrestrictive guidelines in this field,and when something is that well established and harmless, it's not a good idea to change it.
This is applicable here. Although DGG listed his personal criteria above about what qualifies a company as notable, it is clear that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. That Heat Biologics has received 12-page, 46-page, and 11-page analyst reports means that it is notable.
If any editors think analyst reports are insufficient to establish notability, they should "go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD".
Cunard (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep Thanks, Cunard, for the list of analyst reports and the reference to the Notability guidelines, which explicitly mention analyst reports as evidence of notability. I don't think analyst reports constitute reliable sources (especially if they are distributed under confidentiality conditions), but I'll have to discuss that at the Notability Talk page as you suggest. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for evaluating the sources and guideline link I posted. I appreciate your open-mindedness, a quality seldom seen at AfD. (I have stricken your "delete" vote above so the closing admin can easily see that you have changed your position.)
Analyst reports are considered independent reliable sources because they are prepared by reputable research companies like Thomson Reuters and Morningstar, Inc.
Regarding "they are distributed under confidentiality conditions", analyst reports can be purchased by anyone who can afford them. Many analyst reports are expensive closed-access sources like articles housed in Wikipedia:JSTOR, Wikipedia:EBSCO, and the other databases at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility says:
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I agree completely that closed-access, pay sources can be WP:RS. The issue I raised is confidentiality agreements. Many analyst reports I've seen include language like "This document is being supplied to you solely for your information, and its contents, information or data may not be reproduced, redistributed or passed on, directly or indirectly." This is far more stringent than a copyright notice. It says not only that the document may not be reproduced, but that the information in it may not be passed on. I am not a lawyer, and do not know if this is enforceable, but on the face of it, this sort of restriction seems to forbid the use of the report as a Wikipedia source; and also to violate WP:SOURCE. The mere existence of an analyst reports seems like a thin thread to hang Notability on. --Macrakis (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point and would be worth further discussion on the notability talk page. Here is a sample analyst report from Morningstar, Inc. and here is a sample analyst report from Thomson Reuters, which do not have restrictive language like that. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Anthony Appleyard. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghori Kurd Dynasty of Afghanistan[edit]

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

Total hoax. Self made dynasty, self made course of history, etc. it's also listed under speedy, but I listed it here as well, just in case. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete immediately. The two sources cited here do exist, but they never talk about this "subject". Clearly a hoax that need's to be rid of as soon as possible. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heineken Green Room in Singapore[edit]

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

Poorly written article, appears to be promotional. If speedy-deleted, now moot. If my request to cancel speedy deletion, I still suggest deletion after a discussion. The first sentence: "The award-winning Heineken Green Room in Singapore is the definitive electro music extravaganza for music aficionados" is absurdly promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Advert masquerading as a article, per WP:SPAM ukexpat (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoever does guerrilla marketing for Heineken failed miserably at this WP:SPAM if it went undiscovered by us or any search engine-fu for six years. Nate • (chatter) 06:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure spam, nothing encyclopedic about it. Neiltonks (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of above.. clearly just an advertisement ツStacey (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The link to Facebook and telling us to log on for updates is an obvious advertisement. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why not G11? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only reason this discussion was necessary is that a persistently disruptive editor (now indefinitely blocked) refused to accept consensus, and edit-warred to keep the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FTFF[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination for a previous merge and redirect AfD of mine just about 10 years ago. I ran across it in my Contribs. It was reverted in 2013 to its pre-merge splendor, hasn't been edited in any significant way since 10 years ago, and it's referencing things from that era in the present tense. While I'm no longer an admin, I have to say...delete this article. There are more infoboxes than content. RasputinAXP 03:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if best although if redirecting is best wanted also, we can lock the article so it will not be changed. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator. (Though it did make me laugh.. I'd never heard of this before..) ツStacey (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should never have been reverted in the first place. There's not enough for a standalone article. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this person passes NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff MacKay[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Fails NACTOR, GNG. Quis separabit? 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magnum, P.I. perhaps if no sourcing is found as that was his best known work. I'm not entirely certain if there's enough for a solidly independent article but moving to Magnum is certainly applicable. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR#1. Redirection is no good, as although Magnum is his most significant role, he had major roles in a number of other series (including Tales of the Gold Monkey, the DVD of which was apparently dedicated to his memory). With the roles he's had, it's ~~certain~~ rather likely that there's coverage of his work out there in old newspapers/magazines, perhaps WP:OFFLINE, and his obituary indicates he did more than a hundred plays, so there's a possibility there's RS coverage of some of them too. (Not saying that it's likely to become a Good Article or even a good article, mind you....). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improvement but that is common and not in itself a reason for deletion. I think he is notable. MB (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, @MB -- I did not nominate the article because it "needs improvement", which would be an abuse of AFD. Rather, I nominated the article because I genuinely believe MacKay, and I am not trying to be disrespectful, is not a notable actor. Just to make sure everyone understands. Quis separabit? 00:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had 2nd billing in all 22 episodes of Tales of the Gold Monkey which as well as the U.S was shown primetime in U.K to big audiences, he's also had the lead in at least one film, other prominent tv work such as 36 episodes of Flying Misfits, Jag, had a recurring role in Magnum so I believe he passes WP:NACTOR for having notable roles in notable productions, including theatre work.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonny Ahlers[edit]

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

Other than birth and death dates, the article consists entirely of claims that the subject betrayed the Frank family during WWII, and labels the subject a Dutch criminal even though never said in the article to have been convicted of a crime. Extraordinary claims (including posthumous accusations of betrayal and criminality) require extraordinarily high quality sources. The claims in this article, apparently the only asserted reason for the subject's notability, are entirely sourced to one book and a 2002 review in The Guardian of the same book. General Ization ^Talk 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. The references are not in detail about him specifically, not much mention of him at all therefore does not meet notability criteria. I also agree it seems unfairly negative without much evidence. ツStacey (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is already mentioned in the Anne Frank article, and there are not enough sources to support a separate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Sufism[edit]

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

WP:CFORK of Islam and Sufi Islam. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: CFork of Islam and Sufism, and a very unencyclopedic one for that matter. How did this slip the deletion radar for so long after creation? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a comparison not a Wikipedia-style article, plus isn't Sufism a sect of Islam? Jackninja5 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Just to add this really quick, this is also unsuitable for redirecting because I don't know which one it would point to. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it redirects to no pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the point of this is when there are already articles on Islam and Sufism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of above - I am surprise it has lasted this long too.. ツStacey (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK and should be deleted. Any salvageable material can be re-added to the respective articles for Islam and Sufi Islam. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK of Islam and Sufi Islam.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not look like an article!--Seyyed(t-c) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forked content, should be considered as dupes. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Breen (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Fails N, GNG. Quis separabit? 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as IMDb lists a few Soap Opera Digest Awards but they're unlikely to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE and save this article overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources are found. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, IMDb shows that he is an actor but no notable parts and only 3 roles. ツStacey (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeton Aziri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and lacks reliable third party sources further written as a CV meant to promote the subject. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless better familiar coverage is found, none of this suggests even minimally better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to any particular notability in the article, most probably self-promotion (as is visible in the talk page and contribution history of EuroStudents (talk · contribs), author of most of the content, especially with edit comments such as "all the changes are authorized by the owner"). Still, I added a notification for Kosovo. Place Clichy (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above - It is written like a CV; no coverage found on quick google search. 21:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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