< 6 April	8 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instant messaging manager[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. As the lead makes clear, the article seems to exist to promote products of certain companies, explaining why such software is necessary. Sources here as well as those that I'm finding when I look for them, are almost entirely primary, promotional, about different subjects altogether, or through unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: additional COI issue - It appears the page creator, Donnymo has a short user contrib history that consists largely of editing articles to include this information, including links to the companies and descriptions of their products (Akonix and IM Security Center are the ones that stuck out). (see Instant messaging, Instant messaging again, Greynet, Yahoo! Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger again, Yahoo! Messenger again, Windows Live Messenger, MSN Messenger -- I stopped there). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too promotional. The article sounds almost defensive, as if it's attempting to justify the existence of these products. Even if this topic were notable, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch. I don't see much point in keeping a one-sentence stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Resources for Justice[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond the local area; hence fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- (I should note that this article was created by students at my institution, and further edited by me, a librarian at that institution. We hold the papers of this organization. So just to clarify, I don't work for CRJ, rather a library that holds CRJ's archive.) CRJ and its scholarship is mentioned in plenty of sources that are widely distributed, like national press books or national magazines. I will admit we haven't had time to get those sources into the article itself, but looking at Community Resources for Justice in Google Books, you can see citations to CRJ's work in many nationally published scholarly books. Checking Google Scholar, Community Resources for Justice research is used in articles in national journals as well as in publications in several different states. If you search Goole Scholar for some of CRJ's earlier manifestations (this org is over 130 years old and has changed names many times), like the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, you'll see NESSV mentioned in multiple histories of criminal justice and the New England area. It seem like the national scholarly literature definitely has evidence of CRJ's impact, as well as evidence of the impact of its earlier manifestations, which I think bolsters the notability case. I realize we still have quite a bit of work in getting these citations into the article! AmandaRR123 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- from a Wikipedia perspective, it's important to get those sources into this article. The best way to keep this article is to add those sources during this AfD. An admin might close this AfD as early as 12 April 2014. That admin might keep the AfD open for another five days, if some but not enough Wikipedia quality sources are added. Lentower (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- one of the predecessor organizations has an article: Watch and Ward Society. Its role in the idea of "banned in Boston" is well documented. Magic♪piano 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Magicpiano. In that case, since notability is forever, I would have absolutely no objection to closing this and merging the two pages. Now the only question is which should be the title and which should be the redirect? John from Idegon (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence about merging, which is I cast my observation as a note. The Watch and Ward is only one of the predecessor organizations of this one. Magic♪piano 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Organization appears notable. Article needs WP:Secondary sources that also meet WP:RS. Lentower (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few secondary sources and did some re-writing in (I think) a little more of an encyclopedic tone. Does it look any better? Any other areas to work on? AmandaRR123 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established; sources need to exist but do not need to be in article already, for notability to be clear. --do ncr am 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Early Education[edit]

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

No evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Being a private elementary school with unusually high tuition costs is not enough to merit notability and the statement "Since then the School has become regarded as one of the top elementary schools in the nation" is a fallacy. All of the references in the article are from the school's website and there is little to no mentioning of it in major education news sites and agencies. There are many other schools called "The Center of Early Education," none of which seem notable either. West Hollywood, California#Primary and secondary schools already mentions this school and the few content of this article can be added there if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.52.87 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom. ansh666 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school is more exclusive than Harvard University! Based on its tuition fees, it must be good! But also there is secondary coverage, including this W Magazine article. That article also refers to Los Angeles Times coverage. It is significant and notable. --do ncr am 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Not only does the W (magazine) article linked by doncram give significant coverage but Entertainment Weekly also gives in-depth coverage. [1] The nom, provided they are not a sock, needs to become familiar with WP:BEFORE and understand that the sources that happen to be in the article at a certain time usually do not represent all the sources that exist and they should look for sources before nominating. --Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article meets the general notability guideline as a school. While it can be expanded a bit, a Google search produces a lot of results for this school. Epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated by the others, this is one of the best known (and most selective) private elementary schools in the West, as verified by sources like those cited by doncram and Oakshade. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay anthem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My first thoughts when I saw this article were "gawd, what a tip". This article is almost entirely original research and every reference refers to examples of gay anthems, which surely violate WP:CRUFT. I take the view that this article would be best blown up and restarted. Laun chba ller 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Survive The nomination contradicts itself by claiming that the article is original research but then, in the same breath, observing that "every reference refers to examples of gay anthem". WP:CRUFT and WP:TNT are not policies, being just variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are unencyclopedic, so should be removed. That leaves original research. I'll admit that was unclear.--Laun chba ller 09:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major newspapers cover this topic such as The Guardian [2] and The New York Times[3]. Plenty of references in the article, I easily recognizing those as reliable sources and looking at the articles. Dream Focus 09:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Books cover the topic: [4], [5], [6]. I remind the nominator what while WP:TNT is a random essay, WP:ATD is policy, and it asks us to fix articles if they have issues, not to delete them. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closets are for clothes - yes, it needs better sourcing and fixing up, but no more than the normative stub. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work, but that's not a reason for delete. The topic at hand is a notable one. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. That the article is a mess is besides the point. It can be nuked. → Call me Hahc21 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of discussion among multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every reference to a particular song. I'm tempted to say that where any particular song is mentioned, that field should be ploughed with salt, too. I'm happy to Keep an article on the general concept of a "gay anthem", but exactly which songs actually are gay anthems is a matter of personal opinion. There are sure to be plenty of references claiming that this or that song is a gay anthem, but each of those references is just one newspaper columnist's or blogger's or publicist's opinion. For example, when I look at the list in the article I see many songs that don't strike me as gay anthems, while I notice that many of what I would call the "obvious" gay anthems are missing. But that's just my opinion, and every other source that says that some song is a "gay anthem" is also simply expressing an opinion. As an encyclopedia we need to deal in facts, not opinions - even if they are expressed in the music blogs of the Guardian or the fashion pages of the NYT. The correct fix for this article is to remove the parts that are simply opinion. RomanSpa (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the links to these songs, I see notice they mention things about them being gay anthems though. Beautiful (Christina Aguilera song) has an entire paragraph in the lede about that. It mentions that it won a GLAAD Media Award, that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Did all of the songs listed win that award? We need to have a proper inclusion criteria on what gets listed of course. Dream Focus 00:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible to me. Rather than listing songs here, we could have links to different relevant awards (GLAAD Media Award, etc.), and mention the songs in the appropriate article. This would have the big advantage of replacing matters of opinion with matters of fact.

I've also taken another look at the first part of the article ("Themes"), and it does look very much like someone's just cut-and-pasted from someone else's potboiler. The weakness is that it's just a list of disparate descriptions, rather than a thought-out analysis of what actually makes an anthem (as opposed to a song that someone likes). The article also needs to distinguish between what we might call "gay piano-bar anthems" and "gay dance-floor anthems", and address the additional complication that many anthemic dance-floor tracks played in gay clubs are simply "dance-floor anthems" with no particular additional significance for the LGBTQ community. In some cases it's easy to make the distinction - "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves" rarely does much when played in a straight club, and does little these days when played in a non-twink gay club, but still fills the floor and changes the atmosphere in a lesbian club - but in other cases what is described as a "gay anthem" is really just a "dance-floor anthem" (e.g. "When Love Takes Over", "Firework", and even "Dancing Queen"). What we really need is a satisfactory definition of "gay anthem", and that's hard to find, because it's so much a matter of individual people's opinion. I can certainly see Laun chba ller's point when he nominated this article for deletion - it is a real mess. RomanSpa (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am tempted to boldly remove the two offending sections now.--Laun chba ller 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed the removal.--Laun chba ller 12:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree that the topic is notable. WP:CRUFT applies. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "this is cruft" is not a valid argument. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journalistic reporting on this subject coupled with the sources present show that this does exist as a concept, and that it is a notable one. The sources are fine and besides WP:CRUFT, which isn't policy, there's no claim that shows why the page ought to be delete. No policy violations means that this ought to be kept. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the journalistic reporting and other sources support the view that "gay anthem" is a real thing, and that it is notable. Can you provide a way of identifying which songs are actually gay anthems, though? The problem with an article that simply says "Journalist X says that Y is a gay anthem" is that such a reference invariably refers not to a piece of journalistic reporting, but to an opinion or comment column, which simply expresses that particular journalist's opinion. This seems to be a problem, if we are trying to provide our readers with facts rather than opinions. RomanSpa (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kilmurry Ibrickane. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish)[edit]

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

The content has been copied to the article Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish). It is not worth having two articles that cover the same material. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you have copied the info into a newer article, bringing the information about a Roman Catholic parish into that of a civil parish, including the local priests. This "merger" is in fact vandalism. The article about the Roman Catholic parish is the oldest of the two (originally created in 2012) while Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish) a recent (March 2014) creation is. The Banner talk 22:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merger was well signalled. It was also implicitly authorised by the consensus on WikiProject Ireland. THe Banner refused to accept this consensus. For his pains, he received a temporary ban. He is now back to old ways. The Project may consider taking more discplinary action against him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kilmurry Ibrickane along with civil parish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article to Kilmurry Ibrickane - One article to deal with both these types of parishes suffices considering the scant information given on both. I've reworded the first sentence of the lede to give both equal status. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per Mabuska's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. That is the sensible and obvious solution. There is only one parish, both civil and Catholic. Two articles on the same tiny rural area is an invitation to forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED A3, no content. For future reference, for deletions that do not require a debate, you can use the speedy deletion templates (the code for the template is at the end each criterion section). Spinning Spark 23:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Bigfoot[edit]

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

This article is entirely empty - save for the (entirely speculative) Infobox - and is completely unnecessary anyway. Jackakraw (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military anthem of China[edit]

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

I have already transferred much of this content to the Chinese Wikisource, which is a place more appropriate for it (see zh:s:Special:用户贡献/TheChampionMan1234 Most of it is not in English and thus not useful for people that do not understand Chinese The ChampionMan 1234 21:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 21:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the lyrics are transferred to Wikisource, wouldn't the topic still be notable? There is no necessary reason to delete the actual article, since a summary explaining the topic is still needed on Wikipedia. If the musical piece was used during the 1984 Summer Olympics to represent both the PRC and the ROC, then surely that would make it a notable topic? Even if it remains a stub, an article is an article, and there is no deadline for it to be expanded; having a significant portion of the article moved to a different project isn't really grounds for deletion here since it doesn't change the notability of the topic, but only the content within the article. Hence, I'm suggesting that we move lyrics to Wikisource, keep summary on Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Benlisquare says, undoubtedly a notable topic either as it stands or with the lyrics moved and linked at Wikisource. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benlisquare. There are many articles on military anthems which are considered as notable even if their lyrics are not presented in the article. It seems very likely that a country with a large and historically significant military would have a notable military anthem. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as others have said, the lead of the article makes a reasonable, notable, stub even if the Chinese lyrics and transliterations are cut off. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Crighton[edit]

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

Article serves no benefit for the collective knowledge of Wikipedia. Appears to be written solely for narcissism or for advertising purposes. The article is an orphan.

Comment - I completed the nomination for IP 98.160.201.240. ansh666 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable individual, a small amount of strictly local hits as could be expected of a businessman but nothing substantial. Article the single edit by a new account, a classic vanity article characteristic.TheLongTone (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't go as far as speedy deletion just because there is some material backing the page, but there's really no clear indication of notability here besides maybe on a minor local scale. Ducknish (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local developer who has not done anything of note. The listed value of property is not that big when talking about commercial real estate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Together Trust[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Spammy article about a British non-profit that can't be cleaned up because no reliable sources can be found on which to base a legitimate article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article needs cleaning up, and removal of copyvio. I messed things up on 26 November 2013 when I tagged as copyvio a major addition (to the stub I had created), and notified the editor, but forgot to add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Another editor meanwhile edited the copyvio section, in contravention of the instructions on the blanking template - but perhaps out of impatience because nothing had happened since my failure to list it. I have now listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 April 7. PamD 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: longstanding charitable organisation, still active in running schools today. Notability helped by an article on its chief executive which I've just linked. I'm sure editors with access to local history books on Salford and Manchester will find additional independent sources. PamD 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The new source appears to be a self-submitted "this is how I spend my week" blog on the website of a general non-profit support website (Third Sector). This may well verify that Together Trust is an English charitable organization, but it really doesn't establish notability. Had Third Sector written an independent, unsolicited profile of Together Trust, that might have been a different story. 17:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I also found a 1921 Sheratt and Hughes book on the charity, and have added as Further Reading: Worldcat record (too old for an ISBN). PamD 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, but there are sources out there: 1 , 2, 3. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article obviously needs to be rewritten. Eric Corbett 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple Google search reveals this book, which devotes several pages to the early history as MSBG. Added with Third Sector coverage, this is clearly notable. An editor with access to local libraries could no doubt multiply the list of sources. Moswento ^talky 08:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and a number of reference sources have been found. Richerman (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworkgate[edit]

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

As amusing as this incident was, does it really warrant its own article? It's extremely short and not thoroughly referenced: although it received extensive coverage for a short period the same basic details are mentioned in most sources, and all of the noteworthy content is already in Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13 (the article most of the page was forked from in the first place). This article should find the gap like a tracer bullet (out of Wikipedia) with just a flick of the wrist. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raised index finger, adds little if anything to article on tour, which is of a size that can comfortably hold it.TheLongTone (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure that a closing admin unfamiliar with cricket will understand this means Dismissal (cricket) LibStar (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a Merge to article on tour.TheLongTone (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "not thoroughly referenced" - it would be lovely if all our articles were so poorly referenced. There are seven different sources provided. The notability of the incident is shown by the plethora of sources and as such this passes WP:GNG. The principle of developing daughter articles from main articles is well established, when notability applies. --Dweller (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13. No evidence that this meets notability requirements for events (WP:EVENT): events need to have lasting impact and more than a few days' press coverage. Some content could be merged but not sure it's necessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. no long term significance. sportspeople get disciplined all the time. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13. The incident has generated some press coverage, but not sufficient to make lasting impact. Salih (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13. It had significant enough ramifications on the tour, and to the careers of the coach, captain, and Shane Watson, so content in their articles is needed to, but the tour article in my opinion can host the content. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to broader tour article. The incident is significant enough for coverage, but the title "Homeworkgate" doesn't mean very much (well, not to me, at least). Johnlp (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like the title either – yet another journalese "gate" thing. However, the article is in Category:Cricket controversies which unsurprisingly, given the nature of the sport, contains sixty articles. I think to redirect or merge this one would set a dangerous precedent which might impact the rest, so keep it and provide a main article link in the tour article. GnGn (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Australian cricket team in India in 2012–13. No proof of independent notability. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailamp[edit]

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

Failed to discover how this product has passed our notability guidelines. Even with the New York Times article, that seems to be a mere mention, I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Thanks for your input, everyone. SarahStierch (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been through the web archives of the major computer magazines and tech sites, as well as the usual resource checks, and I struck out finding anything. I did find the mention in the Ny Times, but it is just a simple mention and doesn't help the page pass the WP:GNG/WP:CORP threshold. EBstrunk18 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obscure voice messaging add on for outlook in 2003 is not notable. It was mentioned in one article in the New York Times. I don't even think it exists anymore. 123chess456 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding sufficient evidence for this to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 01:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature in the Cell[edit]

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

Appears to fail the relevant notability criteria. Independent sources in the article are limited to a 1-paragraph review from the Times Literary Supplement (with ensuing exchange of letters to the editor) and a blog. I don't see this as "multiple, non-trivial" reliable sources, and I think this book doesn't meet our notability criteria. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a "Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year" qualify as a reward won by this book, which would meet the notability criteria? Best, Purefury182 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the source in question, it seemed to me that the Times Literary Supplement does not actually hand out "Book of the Year" awards. Rather, they invite a number of prominent people to recommend their favorite books of the year. I know this distinction is pedantic, but I don't see this as an actual literary award on par with, say, the Prix Goncourt, Man Booker Prize, or Pulitzer. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Without (yet) voting either way, I'll simply say that I think it's sad that someone wants to delete an article the existence of which does no harm and which people may actually find useful or interesting. Beyond that, I'm not sure why it doesn't meet the first criteria for notability, since it does seem to have received many reviews. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this is just me being cranky, but "it's interesting", "it's useful", and "it does no harm" are all straight out of the canonical list of Arguments To Avoid In A Deletion Discussion. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps it needs revising? I honestly can't see why you would think it helps Wikipedia to delete the article. Exactly what purpose is any article supposed to serve, other than being interesting and/or useful? You didn't respond to the point about notability; I'm not sure why a book that received so many reviews wouldn't be notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As to you question about why "it does no harm" is such a bad argument: articles have costs. We only have so many good copyeditors, so many good writers, and so many people who are competent at getting the plumbing of the articles into shape (making sure references are reliable, WP:MOS compliance, keeping the vandals and hoaxers at bay, watching out for copyright violations and WP:BLP infractions, etc., etc., etc.). Given those finite resources, we want to limit the number of articles we want to take on, and the notability guidelines given us a more-or-less objective way of doing that. So I would turn the question around: why should we pick up articles that don't follow our notability guidelines when we already have such poor coverage on topics we agree are notable? (Rhetorical question, no answer expected.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - By your logic every article should be considered "harmful." If it's really vandalism at this article that worries you, I will personally see to it that any vandal edits here are reverted. Problem solved. The last sentence of your comment seems to imply that the very existence of this article somehow detracts from the quality of other articles. I hardly think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Will reply on your talk page. This is a discussion worth having, but it's out of scope here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there were numerous reviews. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I've found the following [published] reviews.

Sadar, Anthony J. (August 18, 2010). "Wise defense of intelligent design". The Washington Times.
de Vega, Ignazio (n.d.). "In a Thing So Small". Open Letters Monthly.
Averick, Moshe (April 4, 2012). "British Geneticist Robert Saunders Leaves a Highly Prejudiced Signature in His Review of "Signature in the Cell"". The Algemeiner.
Venema, Dennis R. (December 2010). "Seeking a Signature" (PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol. 62, no. 4. pp. 276–283.
Peterson, Dan (September 2009). "Blown Away". American Spectator. Added 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ussery, David W. (September 2010). "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 30 (5): 39.
Scambray, Terry (October 2010). "What DNA Has to Tell Us About the Origins of Life". New Oxford Review. 77 (8): 40.
Bethell, Tom (July 2011). "A Turning Point in the Evolution Wars?". New Oxford Review. 78 (6): 18.(subscription required) (Review of Signature and two other books.) (6-8 are from the ebscohost bibliography here. I have not yet tracked down pdfs of ~~these~~ articles 6 and 8. 07:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

The following are blogs that I consider to be reliable sources, either because a parent publication exerts editorial control (e.g., Chris Mooney's The Intersection blog at Discover Magazine) or because the authors are a recognized expert with multiple peer-reviewed publications in the area. I don't think these should be relied upon to establish notability, but they will help with balance issues. 08:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mooney, Chris (November 19, 2009). "More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science". The Intersection (blog). Discover Magazine.
Saunders, Robert (March 13, 2012). "No Signature in the Cell". Wonderful Life (blog).. Saunders' google scholar profile.

I would also offer up the following blog post authored by Robert Saunders: No Signature in the Cell. Averick wrote his entire article as a rebuttal to this blog post. I'm not familiar with Saunders' work, but I from what little I've gathered it should be straightforward to make the case that this is an expert self-publishing in his area of expertise. I would appreciate feedback on whether or not these reviews are sufficient to establish notability. [added to list above] Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept blogs as sources because there is no editorial oversight. The other sources are too few to give notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SELFPUBLISH provides this exception: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Saunders has a few peer-reviewed publications in this area, so I think I can make a good argument that this is the exceptional case. I'm curious, though, what's your rule of thumb on the number of reviews required to establish notability? Per WP:NBOOK's "multiple, non-trivial" usually aim for three reviews. What's your rule of thumb? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb? That is a matter for consensus. It would depend on the quality of the source (Times Literary Supplement high, National Inquirer low) and the depth of the treatment. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Interesting science reviewers at the Washington Tines...

Anthony J. Sadar teaches BIO 210 - ID & Evolution at Geneva Collage.

"Geneva holds fast to the belief that the Bible is the perfect, inspired Word of God."

"BIO 210 ID and Evolution (3) This course explores the debate between the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and the defenders of Darwinian Evolution, by reading and discussing compelling publications written by each camp. Fall semester, alternate years. Fulfills part of the natural science requirement for graduation but does not give credit toward a major in biology."

"Sadar published his book, In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science which contends that modern climate science is the result of a religious cult."

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, exactly the sort of person one would expect the Washington Times to hire as a science book reviewer. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple, in-depth, independent third-party reviews exist in reliable sources, and the Washington Times reviewed it, too.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems established. Purefury182 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources, clearly notable. Don't see a reason to delete. Adamh4 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ice Cube. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everythang's Corrupt[edit]

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

Repeatedly restored by single purpose accounts. Zero sources are cited for the information and the album has yet to be released. No track list or cover art so it seems to fail WP:NALBUMS, due to lacking the significant coverage required to maintain an article for an album that lacks those items. STATic message me! 19:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to redirect to Ice Cube. Fails WP:NALBUMS TheMesquito (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Cube per WP:NALBUMS and lack of references. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phone yawn[edit]

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

Phase is wp:neo and wp:dictionary ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficiently sourced neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - even the article says the term was coined in 2011 on Urban Dictionary. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One reliable source, one ref to Urban Dictionary, and one to another Wikipedia article. Maybe (and this is a big maybe) merge into Yawn if notability can be established, but I seriously doubt it will. I found a few forum posts asking about it, but nothing else. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Much of the article content was copied and pasted from Urban Dictionary (which is WP:UGC and most definitely not a reliable source). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't urban dictionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, this probably could have been speedy deleted but it should go for WP:NOTNEO anyway. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saifee Mahal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can't find anything under Wikipedia:Notability specifically for buildings, I'm fairly certain a bungalow sourced by Wikimapia and the official site of the bungalow's owner isn't notable. The subject obviously is, but his bungalow isn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator - I would like to add one more line as a rationale, Notability is NOT inherited. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge to Mohammed Burhanuddin. Harsh (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Chand Thakur[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. He is a just a candidate of a political party to contest a Lok Sabha election. It'd be suitable for inclusion, if he wins the election. It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on the subject. However, if multiple reliable sources are produced by some editor here, it'd fall under WP:ONEEVENT, as being notable for one event, announced as a candidate. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:POLITICIAN, merely being a candidate for election doesn't establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the notability test. --RaviC (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Short Films[edit]

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

The article contains no sources, external links or evidence of notability. And even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT seems applicable here. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete. All the article says is, there are telugu films and they are gaining popularity and names obscure films and actors. Should've been PRODed instead. Harsh (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written on top of sounding like a blog. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heard It on the Radio[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSONG. Sources fail WP:RS. A quick Google failed to yield anything that rang the notability bell. Although the album appears to be notable, there is no evidence supporting individual notability for the song and frankly there is not enough here to justify a stand alone article. Recommend delete and redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). See also this related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Billion Hits. Am willing to reconsider if evidence of individual charting or other notability conferring criteria is found. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). Not notable per WP:NSONG. Adabow (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I'm unable to find coverage in independent reliable sources for this song; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 07:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this related AfD... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Feel It (Ross Lynch song).--Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Austin & Ally (soundtrack). Non-notable song from a notable album. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SystemDOS[edit]

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

Non-notable software. As the article itself notes, it was released just three days ago. No applicable coverage found by Google, and the word "systemdos" doesn't even occur in any of the three sources cited in the article—even if the OS it refers to is what they're about, they aren't sources for verification of the name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion. While not mentioning it explicitly, Poettering was clearly stating that they are creating an OS. I added a partial quote.

The whole argument for deletion seems to be that the name isn't cited. The fact that systemd is notable is clear. This article is just discussing the operating system that Poettering has announced. See the article itself for the construction of the name. -- Ben Bucksch (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of systemd isn't at issue here, the notability of SystemDOS is. The whole argument for deletion is that it seems not to be notable; the part about whether the word "SystemDOS" appears in the articles cited was just part of that. In any event, the sources you cited aren't independent sources that can be used to support notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry for being rough, but the article pretty much seems to be someone's pipe dream. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, this is pretty niche and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, so it probably ought to go. Ducknish (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I exported it to v:SystemDOS. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get it. Why? That's simply misleading, as no references even use "SystemDOS" as a term. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the references don't even imply anything Dos-like related. Only one mentioned an OS, but it didn't even say which. I moved it out of Wikipedia, to another project where verifiability is used rather than notability. I might scratch it there since that is hard to use for a resource about dos emulation, and consider starting a resource about dos emulation that includes Dosbox. I will tag it there, for a chance for the editor to fix the problem, if not, it will automatically be in line for deletion. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but the references wouldn't imply anything DOS-like because even the article doesn't imply such a thing. It isn't System + DOS, it's SystemD + OS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I didn't bother to go into that. It isn't supposed to be associated with DOS, MS-DOS, DOS emulation or whatever similar. Of course, that still doesn't change anything about references containing nothing about "SystemDOS". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten SEC on CBS Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources used describe the list in its entirety; they are merely refs about those specific games. This article as a list on the whole is non-notable, SEC-fancruft. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. References ABOUT the list are merely a list of the games. Remainder of references are about the games, which do not establish notability of the list. Could not find any other references that discuss the notability of the list. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional references and only purpose of the countdown was to fill 30 hours of airtime on CBSSN during the college football bowl season/Christmas to give the master control a break for bowl games they can't air. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question was this a TV Series highlighting those games (which indicates that at least 1 person at CBS Sports thought they were the top 10), or are these just 10 games that a Wikipedia editor chose? It makes a difference at least to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a TV series of the Top Ten SEC on CBS Games on a panel of CBS Experts^[1] Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24385933/cbs-sports-network-to-broadcast-top-10-sec-on-cbs-games

- - Then I'm Keep on this one. Clearly significant coverage was in place. Maybe the article should just list the games and link to them in their own "game article" but now we're down to editing and not deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, only significant coverage is from CBS themselves which isn't independent. Secret ^account 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Secret. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ugh, what a mess. "And there shall be socks, and rumors of socks...". The overall consensus here leans towards keep - and weighting towards the end of the discussion, as the events surrounding the article's subject progresses, is a very solid keep. Renaming, if desired, is something to be discussed at the articles talk page; this closure is neither an endorsement of the current article title, or of a need for it to be changed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

This article is as silly as it is misleading. Today, a small group of violent protesters have proclaimed this "Republic". It is not proclaimed by any official authorities, and it happened today. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and an article of this kind is very much premature. There are already a number of articles on the current crisis between Ukraine and Russia, and this would fit better in any of them. Contrary to other unrecognized state, this so-called Republic has not been proclaimed by any relevant authority. I'd say it takes more than 100 activists deciding to "proclaim a republic" for Wikipedia to do an article on it. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Right now Wikipedia is being used by the same activists to try to make the so called "republic" appear to be something more than it is. That is notWP:NPOV Jeppiz (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update to my nomination After less than 24 hours, the small group of people who "proclaimed the republic" withdrew it.[7] In short, nobody except a few vandals occupying a single floor in a building ever proclaimed any republic, and even they withdrew it almost immediately. If a group of guys in Hull proclaim the Republic of Yorkshire tonight and then withdrew it tomorrow, we would hardly create that article. Nor should we here.Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. It is amazing what misinformation is used here. The alleged withdrawal has been done by completely unrelated group of people, who have nothing to do with the Donetsk revolutionaries, who took power in Donetsk. "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." [8]Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is English Wikipedia. OK for sources in other languages, but Euronews is an infinitely better WP:RS than some unknown internet site in Russian. But even if you we're right, it only goes to show why the article is nonsense. Nobody knows who proclaimed this republic. Some random guys. Today some random guys withdrew it. A few random guys sitting in a house and calling themselves a state, without exercising any control whatsoever, is not a state by any stretch of imagination.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your euronews link does not say that declaration was withdrawn by revolutionaries (since it wasn't). Second, in the age of google translate, anyone can check the meaning of quoted words. This is a translation provided: "Note that KPSD has no relation to the separatists, who created the People's Republic of Donetsk, then their decision on the course of events is unlikely to affect." - anyone can check it. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the small group of people who "proclaimed the republic" withdrew it.[9] This is what it says After overnight talks, protesters reportedly gave up some weapons, and agreed to withdraw their earlier declaration of a “people’s republic”. note reportedly and agreed to withdraw, i.e. not withdraw, but reportedly agree to do so. The russian language news clarifies the issue. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep article until the events are clarified. Whether or not it is recognized by any other country is irrelevant. There are other articles for Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Republic of Crimea, so why not this one as well? So we could keep the article, unless the event are proven to be a hoax. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is one huge difference. In all the cases you mention (Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Republic of Crimea), local authorities have proclaimed the independence. That's not the case in Donetsk, it's only been "proclaimed" by a small number of activists, not by any relevant political body. If some friends and I suddenly decided to proclaim a "republic" of our own, it wouldn't be relevant for Wikipedia either.Jeppiz (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Not true; The assembly (taken by protesters, just like in the case of Maidan protesters who overtook Ukraine government) proclaimed independence. Many similarities to the case of Kosovo, and Crimea also. Referendum follows. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly, this is not just a random act, but a decison with far reaching consequences. The declaration of independence is the same as in the case of Kosovo, i.e. without referendum, and a new, completely unrecognized so far, entity has been formed. Referendum has been called (same as in Crimea - but in Kosovo even referendum was not called, despite of what Obama misleadingly said), and development is relevant. It is also reported by BBC [10]. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy keep As per what Membrane-biologist said above. I have nothing to add to his words. --Sundostund (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so I see the people using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes have found their way here. Expected. But if we ignore your propaganda talk about "misleading Obama" and "Kosovo" and instead focus on the facts? Once again, Kosovo, Crimea and many other areas have had their independence declared by local authorities. That is not the case here. The only people who have "declared" this republic is a small group of protesters. And nobody is saying we should not report it. We should, in the relevant article on the situation in Ukraine. We should not let Wikipedia be used as a propaganda tool to make a fictional "republic" seem more than it is.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We should not let Wikipedia be used as a propaganda tool to make a fictional "republic" seem more than it is." Who are you to decide what is propaganda and what is not? Is the statement: "Russia is a great nation." propaganda? This republic, whatever it is, official/non-official, real/fictional should not be interpreted as simply a piece of Russian Agitprop. Political views do not play into the ground level fact! The fact is that these men have control of the government. They have proclaimed a republic and asked for Russian troops. The deletion of the article should only occur if this massive statement of willpower and force would have no regional or international consequences. It should only be deleted if it is meaningless and has no relevance nor pertains to reality. However uncomfortable the reality may be, this event has happened and we need to record it into the annals of history!Klopsikon (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they definitely do not have control of the governement. All they have control of is the building in which the parliament meets. The governement is not a building and the actual members of the government are not under control of the group that has done this declaration. This article is factually false in several different ways. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A "silly" article? Even the rationale for deletion doesn't exist at all. Ahriman2014 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Donetsk People's Republic had been proclaimed by a group of activists. Therefore it is a unrecognized entity, like there have been many before. It is not important if we like it (I don't). Electionworld(talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, it's not important if we like it or not. It's important if it is correct or not. You say there "have been many before". Could you link to them, please? I don't know of a single entity proclaimed by a small group of activists and within the borders of an indenpendent country. Which other entities do you mean?Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Electionworld. All it needs for an article on unrecognized entity is a claim/declaration, which are well documented. No actual control is needed. ex Taiwan_Province,_People's_Republic_of_China 71.226.33.28 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doncsecz^talk 14:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a real declaration of independence, just a small group of separatists with no authority. South Ossetia had a functioning government to declare, as did Crimea or other instances. At the moment, this is just a coup / sit-in in a government building, not a true unrecognized state in the making. I say wait until recognition comes from at least one entity. --Львівське (говорити) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have as much authority as Maidan protesters, who violently overtook Kiev. There is no difference whatsoever. BBC is reporting this as a far reaching news. Membrane-biologist (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Let me remind you, that after Maidan protesters were killed by forces and only after that Ukrainian Parliament made decisions against President, not proclaimed independence! And protesters was not the only one who made those decisions! Ukrainian Parliament working as authorized assembly. So there is a huge difference of situations and you just mixed facts with fake! --Ipadm (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 'violent overaking' in Kiev, measures were passed by parliament - are you saying the entirety of parliament was illegitimate? In this case, they declared every elected official dismissed and did so with no authority. Get your facts straight. --Львівське (говорити) 14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean by MPs like this [11]. Seems legit, just like the Maidan snipers that fired in the mass. Overthrow of Ukraine president was NOT legal, and he is still legally a president of Ukraine - the current protesters in Donetsk are as legitimate as violent MPs who ILLEGALLY took rule, in breach of EU-Ukraine deal. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Please keep your conspiracy theory rhetoric off of this AfD request.--Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided arguments, not empty rhetoric. Look at the video clip, and claim that it is not violence, if you can! Conspiracy or not (possible false flag operation has been reported by intercept telephone calls that were ADMITTED as authentic), there is no argument against the fact that Maidan protests lead to overthrow of legitimate president in breach of EU-Ukraine agreement. So, Ukraine "revolution" is legitimate as much so as the one in Donetsk - and both should be reported here according to facts, not censored (or shot down, if that is more to your taste!) Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy delete. So every time about 50 guys get together to declare a republic of their own, we should create a wiki article? Not even Russia recognizes this and it is not even 5 hours since they declared it. Wikipedia is not a news site and it is not meant to use twisted wording like i.e. "the new administration", which his just harebrained crap. The Donetsk City Council and Donetsk Regional Parliament are still the legal entities in the region and administrative offices still follow their orders. IF in a week or so this Republic still exists and has established truly some semblance of authority there needs to be an article, but as it is now it is just hyping a few peoples declaration, which are not supported by any facts on the ground. noclador (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Principality of Sealand, should we delete this article too?Cmoibenlepro (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy delete - the article is in voting for deletion already (but there is speedy keep though, in the case of nonsense proposals for deletion).

Keep, but re-evaluate in two weeks. It's clearly too soon to say what will come of this, but deleting it is as premature as keeping it for the same reason. Let's give this article some time to accumulate, and it if doesn't work out in the longer term we can revisit this nomination. CodeCat (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm rescinding my previous vote and now vote delete, as there is now enough information to know that this article is a dead end. CodeCat (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need to have an article on Donetsk protests, so this would be a good candidate to redirect to 2014 Donetsk protests to cover all the events since Yanukovych fled. As for an article on this "people's republic" by itself, its not even notable yet by micronation standards, but it is notable as a part of all the Donetsk protests. 100 people breaking into a government building on a Sunday and declaring independence does not make a nation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the World was many states and republics, and most of the short-lived republics was destroyed, for ex. the Mura Republic and his 6 days. The Mura Republic was also unable "state." Nevertheless, there was such a state. So keep this article. Doncsecz^talk 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against keeping the content, but let's recognize its just some separatists who broke into a building and declared independence, just like Pavel Gubarev did last month.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some separatists that represent more than 90% of the population? 213.27.190.94 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a forum for insipid propaganda on either side.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"90% of population support it"? Says who? Please provide wp:ref. According to the BBC: "while Donetsk is majority Russian-speaking, opinion polls suggest many people there still believe in a united Ukraine". IP 213.27.190.94 seems to be lying... So I suggest we do not take his vote into account. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you responded to wrong message, anyway, given that most of the votes for keeping this article comes from unregistered or newly created accounts, I hope that nobody is actually going to take them seriously. It's sad that wikipedia is now being used as a tool of Russian propaganda. I have nothing against having these information here, but on proper pages. Should the Donetsk Republic ever be established and recognized by trustworthy authorities, there would be a reason to have an article about it, but its mere existence is not just doubtful, it's also too fresh to be a part of reliable encyclopedia. This belongs to wikinews maybe, but not wikipedia. Petrb (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is plainly false - most votes for keep are NOT from new accounts. Besides, AfD is not a VOTE, but the wegiht of arguments is what counts. Also, I am sure there will be many more discussion points in the next 7 days. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment I agree the content is good, possibly rename the article 'Donetsk declaration on independence' or something similar? Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941 comes to mind. Until it's recognized by someone or has some sort of authority even in the city, it's just words and not a state structure.--Львівське (говорити) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Our task as armchair historians, is not to criticise or analyze geo-political situations. I will remind you that multiple pages exist on contentious topics, many of which a majority of people contest the veracity of (the Adra Massacre for example, which has been debunked here still operates as a page). We need to overcome our biases and operate under the wikipedia guidelines which allow for and encourage any pages which represent the reality of the world around us. I believe all other points for keeping the page have been brought up by the prior comments. Klopsikon (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mix facts with fakes! Please list local authorities which were "proclaimed the independence"? --Ipadm (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the BBC news, it has a full report - just like Maidan protesters who overtook government of Ukraine (by disposing, illegally, president) - protesters took local assembly. In that country, thugs seem to rule all over the place. But, thugs or not, they are both notable for wikipedia purposes (as are terrorists etc), and their UNRECOGNISED state should not be deleted, as it is a fact of life (like Mafia is, or Maidan overtake of Ukraine) Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Since events developed very fast regarding the Crimea Crisis, I think that we should keep this article until the authorities declare (or not) independence. Reliable sources appear to say that this is real, and could result in another potential conflict with Russia. But by the way, there is an article for the Principality of Sealand. Would you like to delete that article too?Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many good reasons stated above, I don't want to repeat them all, but as long as you want wikipedia to be reliable encyclopedia, which contains verified and trustworthy information, you must not create articles about some "subjects", that were self proclaimed by group of individuals with no recognition whatsoever. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Proclamation of independence IS verifiable, verified and notable (reported by BBC) - so you are wrong. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)~~_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep, for now it is valid since there was a proclamation of independence and given that more than 90% of population support it. If it fails, the article can always be renamed to failed republic proposition.213.27.190.94 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — 213.27.190.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not a real political entity. Proclaimed by a group of protesters, the so-called republic have no defined borders, administration, and does not exercise any real authority.--Kober^Talk 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "real political entity"? In controversial cases, like Palestine, Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland etc. - we precisely have limited or no recognition. Wikipedia should NOT decide what is real state or not, but use well established notability criteria. BBC and all other news services are reporting this as a new (unrecognized) state, that leads to potentially very serious developments. That is whats relevant for existence of this article. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

You are absolutely correct, wikipedia shouldn't decide on this. It's an encyclopedia that should contain verified information. Any self-proclaimed (by few individuals) Republic that is old just few hours can't be easily verified nor trustworthy and doesn't belong here. Once it's clear what is going on there, then it would be unlikely criticized by so many people. Post this on wikinews, not here. Petrb (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same was said on the day of the creation of the Crimean Republic Page and yet look now: with time there comes an appreciation for the fact that history can take certain turns and pursue certain avenues which do not appeal to our personal viewpoints. I implore the people still deciding to set aside their anti-Putin bias and consider what the impact of deleting this article will be if this entity comes into existence? I say wait before hastily erasing a piece of historical narrative. In a week's time it should be decided upon, not now when events are still too fresh. Klopsikon (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Article is a part of propaganda only. Wikipedia is not for any propaganda. --Ipadm (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Ipadm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Funny you should ram your ill-formed opinion to the front of the page. Let us define propaganda as per Propaganda: "Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position." The article does not influence anybody. All it states is the objective events that took place in Donetsk. Literally nothing else! If there is a part which is propaganda then talk about it on the talk page before deleting it with the assent of others. The article does not claim that the Republic is a real entity! All it says is that it has been proclaimed. The article does not lend legitimacy it simply chronicles events occuring in Donetsk for future generations to be able to read back on. Klopsikon (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm usually all for including information on self-declared de facto states, but this isn't a de facto state -- it's literally 100-200 rioters holed up inside a couple of government offices under police siege. It exercises no real control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'de facto' should be the bare minimum line to draw for article creation. Right now they have de facto control of the floor of a building.--Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According wikipedia policies, verifiability and notability are the main criteria. We are not to decide who has de facto control - outside references are all that count. BBC news reported about the new self-proclaimed republic; that is what counts here - sources. And they clearly make this new state both notable and verifiable. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Wikipedia is is also not a newspaper. I see people saying that this will be long lasting or that this will gain notability, those are WP:CRYSTAL arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to concur with the sentiment that votes from single purpose accounts and IPs should not be taken into consideration, or at least less so than actual editors on here who work with this content. --Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Militants are available around the building of the Council Donetsk Oblast: this serious situation. (photo) Doncsecz^talk 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is obvious bias of some Ukrainian voters here, who even go so far to misrepresent people who give here arguments for keep, that are at this point a clear majority. AfD is NOT a Vote, which is what many users here seem to forget. Membrane-biologist (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - Nonsense, otherwise every second occupied house in Europe can get it's unrecognized state article. For news please use Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a live ticker. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rename to something more appropriate (e.g. Donetsk crisis). Fakirbakir (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such entity exists. A group of parliament squatters have no power to declare anything, let alone a republic. This is a joke. Wikipedia should not be abused for propaganda or information warfare. An article about the event of the seizure of the parliament should be substituted, in which this declaration can be mentioned. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — 92.229.36.131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep for now, consider a merge later on once we have a decent idea of how much impact this will have/is having. Coverage is significant, and the potential for growth is considerable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2014 Donetsk Declaration of Independence. The declaration is the newsworthy event that warrants coverage, as is reflected in the body of the article itself. Orser67 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name would be misleading. Its not Donetsk that has declared independence, but rather a group of parliameent occupiers. That is a very important difference. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be misleading; the name just implies a declaration of independence on behalf of Donetsk, it doesn't imply the level of support received by the declaration. Granted, it's obviously important to clarify who declared independence in the opening paragraph of the article. Orser67 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The argument that Львівське gives (not being recognized) is not valid, as Somaliland is not recognized by a single country in the world and it has its own article and several articles related to it. So, no double POV-driven double standards or cheap demagogy, we are not talking about a squat...--HC PUNXKID 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland has de facto control so your point is moot. These guys don't have control of anything but a room. You can't just declare things and make it so like Michael Scott --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand controlls de facto a tiny territory (a sea platform) and it has its own article, so your argument is null. As Cmoibenlepro had pointed, if we delete this article, we should delete Sealand's one.--HC PUNXKID 09:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This thing does not exist, so does not deserve an article about it. Hans Kamp (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's wait before the situation becomes clear. --UA Victory (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Independence has been declared and it's notable with far reaching consequences, so this is a real thing. It may or may not last long, but we have many articles about short-lived unrecognized states here and this one is no different. Feon {^t/_c} 16:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - all independent states are notable objects worth of historical study, regardless of their perceived illegitimacy or size.XavierGreen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 7 April 2014‎

Comment - sure, every independent states are notable. But that does not mean that a bunch of random guys sitting in a house and claiming to be a state while having no control of it and no legitimacy are notable as states.Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not relevant if it is legitimate or not. As long as the event is real, I agree to keep the article. Wikipedia has an article about the Simferopol incident, that states that it's unclear what happened. Canadianking123 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now With the current propaganda support from Russian news agencies, it is borderline notable for now. Might become very notable depending on developments. Wait a few weeks before afd-ing, at least. Thue (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep article about the important new possibly emerging country – that is as populous as Ireland, among others – that has been declared by pretty much the same way as the new government in Kiev or as the new government of the U.S. in 1776. Will we delete the pages for Ukraine or the United States of America, too? Secession simply works like that. It's likely that the independence of the new country cannot be easily attacked by the Maidan regime because the Kremlin would probably quickly send forces if the safety of the separatists were threatened, so it's not reasonable to make a bet that this republic will quickly go away. The people who want to delete the article are clearly doing so with a skewed propagandist purpose and they want prevent others from seeing that millions of people in the Donetsk region doesn't really like the new self-appointed government in Kiev. It's not a task for Wikipedia to selectively suppress the information in this way. --Lumidek (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, it might be notable if even a local authority had proclaimed it. Or if it would have any de facto control. Or if it would have any recognition. It has none of that. This is quite simply a small group of people occupying a building (a building! not a town) and saying they are a republic. The event is notable, and should be covered, but having a country-like article and calling it by this name is clearly out of touch with reality. Once again, a small group of people occupy a building, with no recognition and no control. That's all. Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it's relevant at all, look at the infobox for Republic of Ireland. It says it was declared in 1916 (during the Easter Rising), but wasn't actually recognised until much later. The Easter Rising itself was a failed revolution and the people that rose up "lost" (many of the leaders were executed). So let's imagine... if Ireland had remained British since then until now, then would we have taken this declaration of independence seriously, or would we have dismissed it as "just a bunch of rebels occupying the post office", and would we have deleted the Republic of Ireland article for such a reason? My point here is that the significance of the event depends in part on history yet to be written. Maybe this is just a flash in the pan, or maybe this is the start of a years-long process of political upturning much as in Ireland a century ago. I don't think we can tell at this point. CodeCat (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as a nonsense, promotes crime against Ukrainian statehood. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what kind of an argument is that? Sounds like you just don't like it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Thue and others have said, there's a decent likelihood that there'll be enough coverage to justify having an article on this. But it's really too early to say one way or another, and probably will be for several weeks at least. In the meantime, most of the arguments in favor of deletion don't really strike me as being arguments against the existence of this content, but as arguments against this presentation of this content. Which would be a reason to edit/move/merge/etc. the article, rather than to delete it, none of which require this AFD. (And which this AFD would probably actively interfere with.) Keep for now, and even if this turns out to be nothing it'll probably want to stay as a redirect to another relevant page. lifebaka++ 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP. Those who argue for this being kept are using WP:CRYSTAL arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Rename to 2014 Donetsk crisis, the events that have taken place have become notable but I do not think that the current title falls under a WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They have declared a Peoples Republic of Kharkov now - in this case, they don't even control the building, they made the declaration from the lobby. This stuff isn't notable or legitimate or in any sense real. Just rantings of a few hundred rioters. link. Wait until we can establish notability or de facto control of some sort. Suggestion: Have all "declared" republics in a single article on the event or call it "Eastern Ukraine separatism movement 2014, or something. --Львівське (говорити) 18:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename or merge As above by говорити this could be merged with other articles on declarations of independence by small groups in Eastern Ukraine which have not been internationally recognised. However the content is clearly notable and whichever way things go will remain significant in the future history of the Ukraine and are a significant event in the current crisis. I see no reason for deletion of this article as even a failed coup is a significant event, the title may need to be changed but the content is fine. Tracland (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable other than being in the news? All Ukraine has to do is send their troops in which they are doing to counter the "terrorist groups" [12] and take back the buildings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Ukrainian military is getting involved to overcome the "terrorist insurgency" still makes it a notable event. A failed act of terrorism with military involvement would and has previously qualified for notability on wikipedia. I'm not saying the title of the article is correct or that a significant amount of editing isn't required but that will be done. The article's content is still notable. Tracland (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep this article , this is important , We will see new country born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.141.54 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 April 2014 — 71.167.141.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This discussion at this point cant be easily speedy deleted or speedy kept as it is contested on both sides, unless something dramatic breaks through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Membrane-biologist's excellent arguments earlier. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a source above that is saying that the protesters do not even control the whole building, unless there is evidence that the protesters are in firm control we should not be making articles about countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is nothing excellent in biased arguments of Membrane-biologist whose claims do not correspond the reality and politically slanted towards the Russian propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The events are still developing, so why rush things over? However, i agree about a rename for now. Perhaps 2014 Donetsk crisis. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But rename to 2014 Donetsk Crisis, until at least one country (including Russia) recognizes Donetsk as a Republic.Quartzd (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no any crisis in Donetsk. But that is happening? Some impostors announced themselves a new authority. But authority of what? These unknown people have no any power or influence in the city of Donetsk. They are jast like clowns and they make for media only. Some of them are from russian FSS. But they will go off of Ukraine soon. So all this story is a Much Ado About Nothing. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This event will have historical importance regardless of the political outcome. Magic5ball (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a real declaration of independence. All that declaration is a fake only wich has been made by some people who are unknown for locals of Donetsk city and for locals of Donetsk region. This declaration just for surface effect. All this story is a much ado about nothing. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – we should wait and see what happens. 23 editor (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now there is more reason to speedy-delete this article. The Ukrainian forces have disarmed and removed the pro-Russian usurpers. This imaginary thing that they called "Donetsk People's Republic" or whatever, will never exist! Hans Kamp (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to 2014 Donetsk protests or merge to the pro-Russian protests article. Failing that, delete. —Nightstallion 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large number of reliable sources. It's their job, not ours, to judge whether this political entity is real. Deletion arguments seem to be centred around WP:I don't like it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – reliable sourcing. Notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move - the reliable sources don't report on the legitimacy of this unilateral declaration as if it's a new state - as Wikipedia currently does. It should be documented as an event in progress, ie something along the lines of 'Eastern Ukraine separatism movement 2014' as previously suggested. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This could be something big. B14709 (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per above. smileguy91^talk 00:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A incident wherein a handful of provocateurs proclaim a republic to aid Russian aims is not encyclopedic just because it receives some news coverage. All crystal ball claims that it will lead to something big shoulod be ignored for now. At most, it should be moved or redirected to an article about Russian territorial annexation of Ukraine territory. Edison (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, most of the arguments here for keep have been "This will turn into something big" and the like, they are WP:CRYSTAL arguments and ignore the sources that are saying that the protesters do not even have full control of the building they occupy and are surrounded by the police. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. How the events will unravel is yet unknown, it could become a situation similar to Crimea, although clearly here it is different. There are many reliable sources, but as stated, this in recent and we have to be patient. The least that could be done is to keep the information. Viller the Great (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete I have decided to change this because clearly this "republic" had bno control of anything besides a building, and it is very likely that Ukraine will stay the way it is now (without Crimea), and not splinter into any other countries. Mainland Ukraine favors keeping the union. I suggest that this article and the Kharkov "republic" be merged into 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Viller the Great (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This event just occurred today, yet it has still had an international impact. I'd say there is a good chance that this could end up being notable, so deleting something that we will just need to rewrite in the near future is counterproductive. That being stated, I would not object to renaming and/or userfying the article until notability has been thoroughly proven. The occupation and declaration was notable, but it could probably be better covered in another article Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move. This needs a rename of some sort to reflect the actual situation. If this entity actually begins to function it can be moved back. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ukraine is saying that it retook the building that was taken in Donetsk by the protesters. (CNN) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such state. This is just a group of rioters who took over a building. This is POV content fork of 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donetsk Oblast. The declared republic's boundaries appear to coincide with the Oblast, and there is no reason to have two articles no matter what happens. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep User:Canadianking123 the event is real, I agree to keep the article. Zeddocument (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a better title, any of the names proposed earlier above (2014 Donetsk Crisis, 2014 Donetsk protests, etc), so that the page becomes about the 2014 event, and not the "republic". As of present, what we have here is a scuffle inside a building, and not an actual republic based on any of the theories of statehood. That said, the event is real and well-documented within third-party reliable sources, which demonstrate notability. Afterwards, we should wait a few days to see how the situation unfolds; if it dies down into obscurity, then merge and redirect into the existing articles on the Ukraine crisis. Presently it's too early to call a definite decision, as things are rapidly changing. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as while different form the Crimean crisis, this is a recent, hot topic event with several newsworthy sources of information. However, if the Donetsk People's Republic does not evolve into anything substantial in the coming weeks or months, rename the article to something more appropriate. (Iuio (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, mentioned in many reliable sources, and whilst recent, is likely to have long-term significance. Bazonka (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until entire Ukraine crisis is resolved. What is what cannot be determined without hindsight. / Rudolf 1922 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As per [[User:benlisquare. 2014 Donetsk Crisis would be suitbale. At a later date, it may be suit to merge into existing articles on the Ukraine Crisis. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After negotiations last night the Committee who had announced the creation of the Donetsk People's Republic decided to "Reverse the decision on the establishment of the Republic of Donetsk." ("1. Отменить решение о создании Донецкой республики."). That "republic" didn't even last 20 hours! They also canceled the referendum. Here are a few of the sources: pravda.com.ua, novosti.ua, rbc.ua, vgorode.ua, their own press release. Wikipedia is not for propaganda and not a rolling news service. Too many people forget this sometimes. noclador (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not general talk pages, please do not create new page subsections like you have done. I have re-formatted your comment so that it is a dot-point; please keep in line with the general format here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable reported story/subject. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the proclamation has been rescinded (after the locals complained) as explained by Noclador above, the topic fails the Lasting effect criteria for notability/inclusion for events [13]. It's highly likely that it will fails Duration of coverage. Also, just as a practical issue, we really have way too much Ukraine-crisis related article sprawl with every little occurrence getting its own article and the whole topic becoming one big mess (with a lot of redundancy).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, those who said wait and see what happens, well, we've seen that this was just an exercise in smoke blowing just like the other RSA occupations were. Just add this to the list, we dont need an article on every RSA occupation, we have two articles on this topic now, the RSA article and the pro-Russian protests article - this should find a home on either one. --Львівське (говорити) 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. It is amazing what misinformation is used here by editors who support Ukraine junta. The alleged "rescinding" has been done by completely unrelated group of people, who have nothing to do with the Donetsk revolutionaries, who took power in Donetsk. "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." [14] Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever the fate of the leader, protests etc will be, the act of declaration meets notability standards. Wikipedia is about documenting history, not playing geopolitical games. As long as an article says truth and meets notability criteria it should stay. I also do think that both "lasting effect" and "duration of coverage" arguments to support article deletion are not applicable in this case. Rekrutacja (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability standards and how? Don't just assert, explain. (Same goes for a whole bunch of youse above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Azawad and the Bangsamoro Republik [Soffredo] 14:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The entity here was rescinded, and only existed for one day. It was declared by an unelected group of a couple hundred activists, in a large region made up of many people. There is no reason for this article to exist independent of 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. This is WP:UNDUE to the extreme. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC) - Stricken from the record, see my revised opinion below. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So the subject of this article did never exist, and that only for 24h. I dont see any notability here that would warrant a Wikipedia page. --78.53.82.159 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Contains some good information, but the "Donetsk People's Republic" no longer is (and arguably never was) a real entity. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the declaration of independence was NOT retracted; it is misinformation, the statement against new state was by completely different group of people, not the revolutionaries. So, Republic still exists [15] - NOTE: "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep as the same applied to the Republic of Crimea article, despite the sovereignty of the region being currently uncertain, I believe this article should remain in place to counter-balance other articles such as those which explicitly reject this being the case - such as multiple articles concerning Ukraine. I do believe that it this article should be written in a more balanced way, as should the Ukraine, Russia, Crimea etc. articles. Italay90 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article Lugansk parliamentary republic has been made after news that separatists planted bombs in a building and have taken 60 people hostage and proposed a new republic. Thes crystal balling arguments need to stop they are not helping any bit and are only providing misinformation. As for the Donetsk People's Republic, this source right here: [16] is saying that the independence movement was put on hold. The article Kharkiv People's Republic has also been made despite the fact that the protesters who declared this state were removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This republic is not yet proclaimed, so there is no comparison. When, and if the republic is proclaimed you can make the comparison. Also, there need to be relevant sources for your Lugansk republic, which confirm that the proclamation is notable. You offer no such thing. Hence, this can't be compared to the very notable cases of proclamations by revolutionaries (or terrorists, whichever you like), like the Maidan protesters (who disposed legal president in Ukraine), Donetsk revolutionaries, USA revolutionaries, Northern Cyprus occupation forces, October revolutionaries of 1917, Kosovo KLA, Mexican Mafia, Tamil Tigers, Palestine PLO, etc - all of which are notable, as are their moves, which were reported AFTER they happened. These are the valid comparisons, not the one you made. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete proclamation has little notability in the events as a whole. Comparatively less media attention too. No state exists. You can't tell me that all it takes is one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state. Sopher99 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that storming of Winter palace and provisional government that was formed in October 1917, i.e. an example of a case when one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state, is not consequential? Or, a few dozen people on a boat, like it happened in Cuba? The new provisional government of Donetsk republic is still holding ground, and this is significant event, whatever the consequences - notability is clearly demonstrated by media coverage, which is top news globally for the last two days. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

You are linking to a mass spectacle that took place in 1920, the October Revolution took place in 1917 and involved thousands of protesters, in both cases though its WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was refuting the argument that one or two hundred people cannot make a difference. They can, and there are plenty of examples in history, I just mentioned a couple. You are misquoting (and possibly misunderstanding) the WP:OTHERSTUFF; my examples are strictly related to the importance of several hundred of people (but, if you want, one COULD also argue that October revolution and Cuban revolution deserve an article, which I wasn't - but few would argue that they don't) - revolutions do happen in these numbers, so the argument that You can't tell me that all it takes is one or two hundred random rioters to declare a state does not stand (irrespectively of the AfD discussion). Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)_{Blocked sock puppet. --Nug (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

What point are you trying to make? You refer to highly successful revolutions. It's like referring to Divina Commedia when arguing we should have an article on a book published by some unknown guy yesterday and which still did not sell a single copy. Sure, if this bunch of guys in a building eventually establish a state (or even something outside the floor of a building), it might be worthwhile of an article on this so-called republic. We are not there yet, nowhere near. And what you and many other do not seem to get is this: Wikipedia should not be first We have no intention of reporting news. Almost all of your many many comments on this page completely ignore WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL.Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do happen, but each case is different, here more than a few people are saying words like "This could", "that will", "If it", "Might become" and, "We will" when talking about their keep the article arguments. Yes there are reliable sources for this but not everything that happens in the world gets a Wikipedia article for good reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have articles on similar separatist incidents (like Commune of the Working People of Estonia), then why not this? Although the Donetsk People's Republic isn't claiming to be socialist, I could easily see this article [[17]]. If we delete this article, then there is no reason to keep articles on some similar, older incidents. Another n00b (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. With events in the distant past, we can judge by their coverage in reliable sources as to whether they are notable or not. With regard to this event, we have no such knowledge. There is no way we can justify a separate article for this entity, when, at present, it doesn't appear to have a significance whatsoever. Given some historical distance, maybe that will change. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Some people here seem to think that deleting this article will make the state go away and restore Ukrainian unity! LOL! The mere fact that President Putin and the leadership of the Russian Federation are at the very moment contemplating on whether to intervene militarily to support the republic makes the topic notable – not to mention the fact that one of the main consideration in this contemplation is the possibility that such action can trigger World War III. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This constitutes a claimed political entity and likewise a major chain of unfolding international events which will have deep historic significance. TF92 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anyone can break into a public building and 'declare a republic'. No More 18 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is ridiculous to start articles just because an angry mob declared a 'republic' from the window of the local executive power building. Parishan (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There were alot of republics in the Russian Revolution and Civil War that were small, limited or no recognition, and/or shortly lived, yet they have Wikipedia articles. That sets a precedence. Bolegash (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point. Even those small and shortlived republics had de facto control of at least some territory, they weren't just a few guys occupying a building and claiming to be a republic.Jeppiz (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These guys have control of the building, right? That's something. What is the minimum amount of territory to count as "some" territory? A city? A city block? What? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, what about the Russian_Democratic_Federative_Republic? How much territory did that control?Bolegash (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? We don't make decisions based on precedent here. We base them on policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy" alone isn't anything to base a decision on.Bolegash (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such state, just a handful of extremists disrupting public order and breaking the law in a Ukrainian city. Any material on this incident can be covered in an article on Russian nationalist terrorism in Ukraine or something. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments appear to prove you aren't approaching this matter with WP:NPOV. LordFixit (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Question. I fail to see how this isn't notable. If a group of a protestors broke into the Nebraska State House, kicked everyone else out of it, and declared the "Nebraska People's Republic", would that not be notable? Just because it's in Ukraine, and a lot of stuff is happening in Ukraine, doesn't mean that this is not notable. Question: What does this hurt? I fail to see how Wikipedia is a lesser place with this article. I also fail to see how it's a better place without this article. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event itself may be notable on some level, but to give it an article at this time is WP:UNDUE weight. It can be covered in existing articles on the subject, namely 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine and 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations. This causes clutter, and is in a way pushing a POV. Until we know whether reliable third party sources view this act as historical, namely scholarly materials, we cannot determine whether it deserves a separate article, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine* or rename (Donetsk separatism movement, 2014 Donetsk crisis, Donetsk Regional Administration Building seizure or similar). A state, even a de facto regime, is not only defined by a leadership claiming to represent state power, but also by control over a territory and population. This state is mostly fictive, because it does not have territorial control. The seizure of the regional administration building and declaration of a "people's republic" is obviously notable as an event. But it does not warrant an article for the purported state. --RJFF (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*or even better: merge with Donetsk Republic (organization). I just noticed that there is a separate article about the organization that declared this "republic". Why should there be two articles about the secessionist movement and the state they desire and have proclaimed, but have not yet realised in reality (except from the occupied building)? --RJFF (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously concerns notable events. All the numerous "no such state" / anyone can declare a republic" arguments for deletion are not valid. The issue is not about how real a state (when compared to other states) this "People's Republic" is, but about whether any entity (state or not) exists with this name, even if it is an entity that exists in name only or existed only briefly. Such an entity does seem to exist with this name, so I think that the article should be kept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with RJFF. The so-called republic has no territory and no population. Or it is very small, only the building and its surrounding area where people stand, wanting that republic. The riot is notable and encyclopedic to mention, but the republic isn't. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because it simply does not exist. It is as little encyclopedic as the statement that I go to a store with my father looking for a neat camcorder. Very nice, but totally irrelevant in Wikipedia. And so is this republic thing that has no value. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  The fact is that the republic does control territory. Here is a rebel roadblock 40 km outside Donetsk. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't prove a thing. It is nothing more than a roadblock. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just because some jerks roll tires into a road doesn't mean they control the region. Vague youtube video is also not a legitimate source or argument. --Львівське (говорити) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling your opponents "jerks" does not help your cause. Please stop your name calling and remain civil.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC) user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, were you rolling tires into a road? --Львівське (говорити) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems clear now that there is no consensus to delete the article, on the opposite there is more general consensus to keep the article (at least until further developments). The event is notable, and present in global news. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a reason to keep this article (meaning the republic does exist) it is over after a few days. Ukraine will end this nonsense and the article can be deleated. Or you can see it otherwise: Ukraine will annex this republic. If - after a few days - this article isn't deleted, the English Wikipedia no longer represents the truth. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people voting keep are pro-Russian sockpuppets, though. This is like the Crimea fake referendum all over --Львівське (говорити) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Львівське. Do you have any proof of your accusations? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do an SPI on everyone, but take you for example: started editing for single purpose in March, your first actions were to edit war and blank info. Suspect. --Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all a AfD is not a vote and secondly I am from Sweden and I take offence to your comment Lvivske. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More putinists than in the Dutch and Russian Wikipedia. In the Russian Wikipedia this article has been deleted. In the Dutch Wikipedia it hasn't been created. That says enough. The moderator should delete it or merge it with (an)other article(s) as suggested above. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I do not think that Kiev will take back control of the east soon, if ever. Ukraine is looking to be a failed state on the brink of collapsing. Of course some are reacting violently to the end of their home country.Canadianking123 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing user: Reasoning such as "I do not like it" which has been used here a lot is not a reason for deletion or merging.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for a lot of the WP:CRYSTAL keep arguments though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can I get a bunch of people in an office to declare their own "people's republic" and get an article on WP, too? The article is asinine and without merit. - ILBobby (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that it didn't become defunct within hours of proclamation, like it's counterprart in Kharkov, gives it lasting notability. Óðinn (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two days is not really enough time to go by for lasting notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is enough time? Two weeks? Two months? And, more importantly, who defines the time period that would suffice? Óðinn (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Carpatho-Ukraine existed for a day only , or Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic existed for 6 days. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't, and nor are you. You're not comparing like for like. The Donetsk People's Republic doesn't enjoy 'popular' support, or exercise de facto control over anything more than a building. It isn't time that's important, it's reality; the occupation of that building could last for a decade and, unless things change, they still will never have been an unrecognised state by the name Donetsk People's Republic. Alexsau1991 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the protesters are quite popular in Eastern Ukraine (IMO). Do you think that Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic or Carpatho-Ukraine had control over any territories? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Control over any territories? Even less so the Estonian Salvation Committee. What is more important is that the Estonians, like the Donetsk republic were able to disseminate their "Declarations of Independence" among the population. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Estonian Salvation Committee was appointed by the democratically elected Estonian Provincial Assembly to draft the Estonian Declaration of Independence, nobody elected the mob who proclaimed the so called "Donetsk People's Republic". --Nug (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the official Ukrainian mass media review. No word about the history of the Donetsk-Kramatorsk Republic dating back to the 20s of the previous century. No word about why people of Donetsk did raise. And what strikes me most is that they are called separatists! Separatists from what? The legitimate Ukrainian state has fallen down in February 2014. The separation from the illegitimate order is probably the most patriotic action in Ukraine.84.104.136.136 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Elena Plotnikova-Kossakowski[reply]

Arbitrary convenience break[edit]

Compromise solution? If I read the arguments of the keep "voters", their main interest seems to be to keep the information about the obviously notable event of the regional administration seizure and declaration of independence and project to create a secessionist republic. The summary of the delete "votes" seems to boil down to the arguments that a separate article on the purported state gives too much weight (or even legitimacy) to the project of a secessionist republic whose proponents do not have (yet) control over the territory they claim. So, could it be a compromise solution to merge the encyclopedically relevant content into Donetsk Republic (organization), 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, or 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations and create a redirect from Donetsk People's Republic to the respective article?

To facilitate a potential consensus, I would like to ask future participants in this discussion to specify if their keep "vote's" motivation is just to keep the relevant content or if they insist on having a separate article, respectively if their delete vote is motivated by the wish to get rid of the separate article without insisting to delete the contents, which could by satisfied by a merger+redirect solution, too. --RJFF (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a very good summary. Can we put a page break above it to direct people to it? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as attracting extensive international attention and certain to be of permanent interest. I cannot imagine a history of the period not including it. The content seems a fair presentation of what is likely to be the state of affairs and can be edited if there are future developments, I also explicitly support keeping it as a separate article, because this is the name under which people are likely to look for it, certainly now, and very probably in the future. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can be solved with a redirect to appropriate section in the other article. That is, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine#Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are saying that these two article are mutually exclusive. There could be an article about the republic of Donetsk (and its eventual end), and also an article about pro-russian protests if you want (but it is already very long with the timeline). I think the current article is neutral enough, and the event is notable in my humble opinion. I don't see a good reason to delete it. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Canadianking123 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is WP:NOTNEWS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse than not being news, it is also WP:UNDUE weight. Giving more significance to an event than it is due hurts the neutral nature of this encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this has the coverage if this is kept then it should be included elsewhere. As said before are we going to start making articles for people who take over a building and declare a republic? A news story yes, practical and appropriate for Wikipedia? No. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the protest was crushed after a couple of hours, then I agree that it would not be notable enough to have its own article, based on WP:NOTNEWS. But this is not the case here. The argument seems to be "I don't like the protesters, this must be a joke right? Please delete this article" which is moot. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Canadianking123 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't give a damn about the protesters, one way or the other. At yet, we have no way of establishing the notability of this incident in scholarly sources. To give it more than basic description of events in the appropriate articles, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, is WP:UNDUE weight, violates NPOV, and harms the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Not all 'news' is historically notable. We need distance to decide whether it is. That's why your example doesn't apply. For that, we have distance, and it is easy to establish notability. Regardless of that fact, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester May I ask you how do you know it won't be historically notable? Unless you have a crystal ball, I think it is wiser to keep until we have the historical distance. Perhaps in 10 years, we could say that the Flight MH370 was not that much historically notable either. But for the moment, it is notable, so it makes sense to keep it in Wikipedia. Also, deleting this article may give too much WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-rebellion. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know. That's why we can't give it an article, at yet. Read what you just linked. The 'anti-rebellion', whatever it is that you are referring to, doesn't even have an article, so I hardly think that could qualify as WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speadily rename to Separatist Donetsk republic per Google because only this kind of description is real. The present title is fake. The Globe and Mail says that some "unidentified bearded man" on a pile of rubble shouted out: I proclaim the "Donetsk People’s Republic". The press loves it, but we cannot accept that as suitable encyclopedia level entry. Here in Wikipedia we have the Banana republic article, so we can also have this (but only after a rename). Poeticbent talk 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That name does not exist.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying...! Neither does the so-called "Republic" written with capital letters. The phrase Separatist Donetsk republic exists only in Google search, describing an odd incident during a riot (not a real life situation). Poeticbent talk 12:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than a building are there any sources saying that this group has any real control over anything else? The single building controlled is located in the uncontrolled city of Donetsk and this group is claiming control over the whole Donetsk Oblast? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. There are plenty of reliable sources. A newer one: "Kiev in dilemma over Donetsk People’s Republic" (April 10, ft.com) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable on its own right that a regional government - the legitimacy of their actions disregarded - has defied the national government for over five days, continues to issue proclamations and is under the constant threat of armed siege by its enemy. Even if the movement is crushed, which looks unlikely anytime soon given the support of Russia, deleting this article would not erase this government from history. --Tocino 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Some people here should really stop using arguments like "anyone can declare a republic from a basement" or anything similar because there are no sources covering "your republics". It's as simple as that. These events are certainly notable and are the core of an ongoing crisis. On the other hand, i see many WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that are also irrelevant. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many WP:CRYSTAL arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many basement republics do get articles, they are called "micronations", and they also get debated at AfD. This Republic of Two Floors of the Donetsk RSA Building is not much different. But the events in Donetsk are notable so there's no way it will be deleted, whether the title moves is a separate question which will sort out over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly, should we also then create an article on the separatist region of Hughesovka that seeks a union with Britain[18]. --Nug (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike Transnistria or South Ossetia, the so called "Donetsk People's Republic" does not have de facto control over anything beyond the second floor of the Regional State Administration Building in down town Donetsk. What next, create an article Hughesovka based on this[19]? --Nug (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that control does not matter in regard to notability, we have dozens of articles on micronations that have even less control than Donetsk People's republic. And in regards to their control of territory, Donetsk People's Republic controls the entire building as well as a strip of territory within the barricades surrounding the building.XavierGreen (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a source that states this "Donetsk People's Republic" is a micronation, or is that just WP:synthesis? --Nug (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The question on territory should rather be posed as does the Kyiv Government have any control in Donetsk or the region? Until now they seem to control some of the security apparatus, but as of this morning the People's Republic and its Peoples Militia undisputedly controls the city of Sloviansk at the northern border of the Donetsk Oblast. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This tweet by Graham W Phillips, RT freelance journalist gives some more indication on the teritirial control. "Driving to #Donetsk today, some 110km by road, no sign of Ukrainian army but no fewer than 10 pro-Russia checkpoints are up now." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. – It may be time to start working on an article on the Donbass People's Militia. P.P.S. – They have just taken control of the Ministry of Interior (= police & security) building in Donetsk. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one contests notability. Instead, what is contested is giving the events WP:UNDUE weight by separating them from 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would give WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-rebellion plans, from the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Guard of Ukraine. I am against censorship. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)user indef blocked --Львівське (говорити) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then seeing that this has spread to other areas in the Oblast wouldn't it make sense to move the page to 2014 Donetsk crisis? The wording there favors neither side. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are all wrong this is not a matter of being pro-russia or pro-ukraine. It is about being true to the current information. To delete this article would be pro-ukraine and would be WP:UNDUE but keeping this article and then after a few months re-evaluate the situation would be non-biased and fair. Users needs to be more distinct between the PRO discussion and the information discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be 'pro-Ukraine', as it would receive adequate coverage in 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. We don't even have an article for the pro-Ukraine response. Keeping the article isn't fair, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't make predictions about the future. Until WE KNOW, we do not DO. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell the article makes no predictions but only presents what is already known. Also Wikipedia daily produces and accepts articles which tells of future events or other stuff that has yet to be resolved. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing user - There is currently a name change discussion going on at this articles talk page. A in my opinion clear attempt at overriding this AfD. We can not have a "consensus to keep this article and its name" here and then a "consensus for name change" at the talk page discussion. It does not work that way and would only make way for a lot of disruptive discussions and arguments between users. If this AfD as closed as Keep and name kept then the name change discussion should be closed and re-started or similar. We can not have two discussions ongoing on the exact same issue in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process similar to the present civil strife in Ukraine happened in Yugoslavia that fell apart in 1990s, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per the reasons stated above. Regardless of the legitimacy of the "entity", reliable sources confirm its existence & notability, especially in the context of recent events.--Therexbanner (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion. Seems to be a case of a WP:WORLDVIEW. As another used said above 'I fail to see how this isn't notable. If a group of a protestors broke into the Nebraska State House, kicked everyone else out of it, and declared the "Nebraska People's Republic", would that not be notable? Just because it's in Ukraine, and a lot of stuff is happening in Ukraine, doesn't mean that this is not notable. Question: What does this hurt? I fail to see how Wikipedia is a lesser place with this article. I also fail to see how it's a better place without this article'

I could not agree more. The deletionism by editors (American or European based, I guess) over every article connected with events in Ukraine is astounding. LordFixit (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change my position on this article to 'Support', considering recent events that could not've been foreseen previously. However, I'm not opposed to a potential name-change to more neutral language after this discussion is finished. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the same believe that the content should be kept but am unsure if an article on the 'country' should exist, or if it's better to have an article on the conflict in the region as a whole.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content but rename The content is certainly notable, but the article should be renamed to something like Donbass Uprising. The article is not about a self-governed territory but about the uprising/coup/mutiny/unrest whatever you would call it. Also the country infobox should go as misleading Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cmoibenlepro is now blocked from editing the English Wikipedia due to disruptive editing. I have reverted Lvivske's edit that struck out all of Cmoibenlepro's comments because no rationale was provided for this change, and WP:Strikethrough does not mention anything about striking out other people's comments (whether blocked or not), only one's own. If the fact that Cmoibenlepro is now blocked is relevant to whether the points that he may have raised in this discussion are taken into account, then I believe that this comment is sufficient notification to the closing administrator (or non-administrator). --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should not be purblind - it is just the case about that future historics will write and mention rather long time and rather often. It is rather notable and important case of separatism. Ашири (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A state has being declared and is in virtual control of its own territory. It also has a sizable Militia/Army. If the state collapses in the next few day's then I would support a delete but at the moment it looks like the Ukrainian government is not going to regain control any time soon so it would be way to premature to delete the article. Tomh903 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TimesSquare.com[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article on non-notable company written by SPA. Surprised it has lasted this long. Same new account authored article on non-notable CEO, Lorenzo Tartamella. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've attempted in tidying it up but in general it still seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another magazine about New York, this time in website form! Unsourced, non-notable far as I can tell. I'm not sure the logo's Fair Use, either. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Tartamella[edit]

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

Really warrants speedy deletion. SPA-authored apparent autobiography of individual who does not meet GNG. This article consists 100% of original research supplied by the subject of the article. The subject has received absolutely zero publicity. His company has received a little attention for a logo contest, but as for the CEO: nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter fail of WP:BIO. Entire page is just WP:SOAPBOX with unreliable sources (e.g. PR Web). --Drm310 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koenraad Elst[edit]

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

Miserably fails WP:GNG & WP:RS , the reference and citations are of private websites in nature even the crticisim and praise are linking much to self proclaimed personnel website, no where does notablitliy from reliable sources comes into picture also may be WP:OR Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because of serious NPOV violations in a BLP article

This article has serious NPOV (Neutrality) issues in a Biographies of Living People (BLP) article:

They were already mentioned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive178

Apparently, some improvements were made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor.

This article should be deleted in the current state - it fails the BLP NPOV policy miserably. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article can be improved, his self-references weeded out. That said, Elst is notable (or notorious?) enough to have a WP article on him. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think so. User:Collect was improving the article, but it was reverted by another user. I think the NPOV issues in this BLP article are very serious.

The BLP policy says clearly:

If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.

Please reconsider your vote. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not an attack page, so my vote stays. --Soman (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the links above? Elst says that:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.

Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.

If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

From Elst's article on his wikipedia lemma, it sounds like a lot of it is indeed an attack page. And by BLP policy, it may be necessary to delete the entire page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Calypsomusic. Unfortunate, but there's nothing to salvage that isn't problematic... Brigade Piron (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note If anything, an editor with an even strong sense of deleting what does not belong than I have should arrive at the article to remove a great deal of material which, if not overtly negative, is of substantially no value to readers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Boldly closing the AfD as snow keep as deletion is the worth ever option to fight something that can simply be edited. If there is opposition to edits of a particular editor take it to WP:ANI or WP:BLPN or get it protected or simply start editing it yourself. I have known from past few example of nominator's extremely poor judgement on whats need deletion and what needs editing. I see no reason why such poor thinking of nominator be reflected as being that of whole Wikipedia community on the top of the page in bold by saying "is being considered for deletion". Nominator, please be warned by these words itself and don't assume that only templated warnings are warnings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 3:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

I have undone the above closure as an inappropriate supervote. Snow keep is not a valid rationale when there are three editors arguing in favour of deleting the article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elst obviously passes GNG, AFD is not for cleanup, just stub the article if there are BLP problems and work form there. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the general notability guideline has been passed is evident; the article just needs to be cleaned up, but not deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to take a scythe to this article. I read the first half dozen paragraphs on Elst's blog, and what he needs to realize is that Wikipedia articles can only provide what is offered by reliable sources. Unfortunately that means that a lot of possibly useful biographical information simply cannot be stated in our articles, in "our" voice. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elst passes GNG, and AFD is not for cleanup, as noted by DarknessShines. Article should be cleaned up. For much uncontentious bio info, sources are viewed as reliable about themselves (see WP:BLPSELFPUB). --Presearch (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Šaper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. beside that, the article is largely unsourced (especially from what needs sources) and looks like plain (self)promo. The fact that he plays/played in a popular band that not make him automatically notable, as notability is not inherited. The Banner talk 10:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was FRONTMAN and founder of one of the most well known bands in former Yugoslavia, not just some member of some band. On this alone, he is very notable.

Being a member of a notable band, does not make the members of the band automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. The Banner talk 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: reverting to a promo-free version proved useless as one user keeps adding the removed info. The Banner talk 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His career in marketing has now been moved downwards, as it is not what he is best known for (though his company is very much notable in Serbia, and even conspiracy theories abound about his influence and control of DS).

Speedy keep As one of the original authors of the article, before its unfortunate expansion, I must say that the article passes notability standards, in terms of the musical career, which concerns me most. My suggestion would be semi-protection of an acceptable version of the article. --Milosppf (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Srdjan Saper is not only a famous musician (band Idoli was one of the most important in Serbian new wave), also actor (main role in cult movie Davitelj protiv Davitelja, but is a very influential person in Serbia today, adviser of former president Boris Tadic, and, via his media company, one of the most influential media moguls in Serbia. Why this was suggested for deletion, is quite strange indeed. Look at the Serbian sources for him, [20], [21] etc (google translate to see what it says). 78.30.132.61 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a member of a notable band, does not make the members of the band automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. The Banner talk 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was frontman, founder of the band. Also, an actor. Also, a very famous person in all ex-yugoslavia. Thus, this proposal for deletion is nonsense. Besides, there are articles on ALL members of the band; the band is so notable in Yugoslavia, your ridiculous "argument" would be just as valid, as if you wanted to erase Ringo Star article, on the basis that he is merely a member of some famous band. Or Lennon or Paul for that matter (as a more valid comparison). How about we start deleting articles about most important rock musicians from Netherlands? Why dont you suggest that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.132.61 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. How did his notability change since you The Banner nominated it for deletion last time, less than a year ago? From the history, I see there is a promotion/sockpuppetry problem, which can be solved by protection or blocking; WP:RFPP is third door down the corridor. I added the article to my watchlist and reverted it to the promo-free version, if that will make you feel better. No such user (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was her election's now been confirmed, so this has to be kept. Updating for conformity with our actual content rules will follow. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène David[edit]

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

No indication of notability Eye snore (pc) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's a Canadian Quebec politician and University of Montreal vice-rector, and sister of the Québec Solidaire party leader Francoise David, who has numerous seats in the Quebec provincial legislature. Authored, last time i read in news article, over 200 scientific papers related to psychology and other fields she's engaged in. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person does not qualify for an article on here just for being a candidate in an election — and per WP:NOTINHERITED, a person doesn't qualify for an article just for being the sister of someone who has an article either. Her career at the Université de Montréal might get her past WP:ACADEMIC if you could properly source the notability of her work as a faculty member at the university — but simply asserting that a person was a faculty member at a university isn't in and of itself sufficient for a Wikipedia article either. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would fully agree about that. However, in this particular case, the rationale of this deletion request will almost certainly be moot in eight days, as she's a candidate in the riding of Outremont and thus her election is almost certain. Certainly, it would have been better if the creator of the article had refrained his enthusiasm and waited until next week before creating it. The creation during the election campaign is a bad idea. But it would probably only be useless trouble to delete the article, merely for the principle of it, in seven days from now, on April 6, only to then restore it almost immediately, the next evening, on April 7. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, I find that AFD debates are only very rarely closed promptly on the seventh day anymore; typically, they linger for at least a few more than seven days before actually getting dealt with. And, of course, if she does win the election her notability claim and sourceability will have been changed sufficiently that she'll become keepable, and I'll be happy to withdraw my !vote if that happens. However, Wikipedia does not deal in WP:CRYSTAL predictions. No matter how likely or "almost certain" a person's victory may seem, it's not actually unheard of for a "favoured, likely or certain to win" candidate to actually lose the election in the end for one reason or another — see British Columbia general election, 2013, see Brandon—Souris by-election of last fall, see Bradley effect — so we can't keep an article just because somebody asserts that the topic is probably going to win. For our purposes, either they've won or they haven't, and there's no place for the prospects of future victory to skew their notability or lack thereof.

The other danger here is that if we led this slide just because she's "probably" going to win, that has the potential to set an undesirable precedent in which other candidates have to be allowed articles, just because somebody asserts that their victory is probable, if she got to keep hers. We don't want to invite a situation where any political party feels like it can game the system by swamping Wikipedia with campaign brochures for all of its unelected candidates, as long as it does so late enough in the campaign that we'll be obligated to keep them just because of the chronological proximity of election day. So no matter what timing is involved, we have to treat this the same way we'd treat any other article about an as-yet-unelected candidate rather than giving her special treatment. I'd certainly encourage the reviewing admin to leave this open for an extra day or two instead of rushing to close it right away on day 7, if possible — but even if we end up with the article getting deleted and then having to be recreated again within one or two days because she wins the seat after all, then so be it, no matter how silly that may seem. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLITICIAN, she'll certainly qualify for an article if she wins the election, but she is not entitled to an article just for being a candidate in it. Delete unless it can be properly sourced that she actually passes WP:ACADEMIC for her work as a university professor. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof but am prepared to change my mind with further evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete In most cases candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Dr. David authored about 200 scientific papers. She received the Simone Chouinard Award from the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, and the International Cesare Sacerdoti Award from the International Psychoanalytical Association. She's a member of the Quebec College of Psychologists since 1977, served for many years on the Montreal Heart Institute Board of Directors.
Keep, as per WP:ACADEMIC, David fulfills criteria #2 (won the International Cesare Sacerdoti Award from International Psychoanalytical Association), criteria #7 (Assistant Deputy Minister for higher education in Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports (Quebec) under provincial Premier Jean Charest; member of Quebec College of Psychologists since 1977 and former member on the Montreal Heart Institute Board of Directors), and criteria #5 (Deputy Director of U of Montreal's Department of Psychology). If she wins the election tonight, which is almost a guarantee in the heavily-federalist (and virtually opposing all remaining provincial parties other than David's federalist Quebec Liberal Party) constituency of Outremont, Montreal, she fulfills WP:POLITICIAN and even more of a reason to have an article on her on Wikipedia. She has already received significant media coverage in Canadian national media, stemming from her attribute of being a federalist sister of Francoise David, leader of the opposing separatist Québec solidaire party, already fulfilling WP:POLITICIAN. She was on national evening news on the CTV network.

@Johnpacklambert: i'm not basing the creation of this article merely because she's an electoral candidate, which is ridiculous as they'll be thousands of these random unknown people in Canada. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) @Xxanthippe: Hola, i've just added additional details on her academic and political background in the "Update" section and in my response. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only cites I can find on GS are 123, 34, 19, 61, 54, 14, 11 .... (you might have got these yourself). Not really enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not enough to say "the topic was a notable academic, so we have to keep", if the sourcing isn't there to verify that she's notable as an academic. The only source that you've actually added at all for her academic career is her faculty profile on the university's own website, which is a primary source that cannot demonstrate notability. Rather, all of the article's reliable sources are specifically about her candidacy, and thus fail to give her sufficient notability as of right now. If she's notable enough as a university professor to get past WP:ACADEMIC, that would be demonstrated by reliable secondary sourcing about her academic career, and not just by asserting any particular number of papers authored without sourcing the fact (or by articles about her political candidacy which just mention her career as an academic by way of background). So it's certainly possible that she does actually pass a notability guideline for other reasons, but what you've written and sourced here fails to properly demonstrate that.

And as already noted, if she does win the election and thereby get through the WP:POLITICIAN door, then the article can and will be recreated given that her notability claim will have substantively changed — an AFD discussion does not mean that the subject can never have an article, it just means that they're not entitled to keep the particular version of the article that existed at the time of the deletion discussion. We have lots of articles that got deleted via AFD at one point in time, but then became recreatable at a later date because their notability changed — a deleted "campaign brochure" article about a candidate can be recreated if and when they actually win the election. A deleted "publicity machine" article about an emerging musician can be recreated if and when they actually release their debut album and it becomes a hit and wins a Grammy Award for "best new artist". And on and so forth.

But what we don't do is keep articles about people who aspire to surpass our notability guidelines, but have not actually done so yet, just because that might happen in the future. We don't speculate on our article topics' prospects of making it over the notability bar in the future; we only keep articles about people who have already cleared the bar. And that includes making assumptions about how likely it is that a candidate will win the election — Outremont's federal counterpart used to be a hypersafe Liberal stronghold too, where you could make the same argument that a new Liberal candidate was automatically notable enough for an article just because their eventual win was that inevitable. Until the time it suddenly got won by a party that, according to conventional wisdom, had no chance of ever winning any seat in the province at all, let alone that one. It may indeed be that she'll win the election in the end — and if she does, then she'll certainly qualify for an article when that happens — but Wikipedia does not deal in election predictions, so a candidate does not become notable enough for an article until the ballots have been counted and they did win the election. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you addressing? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nguyễn Quốc Việt. Also known as the person who made the assertions that I responded to...and the person to whom my comment was already correctly threaded, indentwise, as a response. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete She doesn't pass our guidelines for WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:ACADEMIC at this time. Let's see what the future holds. Besides, the article itself would have to be totally rewritten to a short boring stub to rid of the promotional electoral jibber jabber on it. SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep assuming her win can be verified in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guaranteed Keep - ELECTED. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 29 polls out of 152 reporting as of right now, so hold your horses. Seats have flipped back unexpectedly even with a strong lead at 29/150, so Wikipedia waits until the numbers are done. I'm not saying that will happen here; I'm just saying — like I did before — that Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing predictions. Trust me, as well, that I'll personally close the discussion when it's over — but it's not over until 152/152. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rick Astley. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Rick Astley[edit]

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

A generally non-notable release by a legacy recording label. No new material, no significant coverage per WP:NMUSIC and more generally at WP:GNG. A review at Allmusic mentions nothing substantial and as far as I can tell it did not chart. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Astley. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Astley. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rick Astley. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick Astley per the above, WP:GNG, and WP:NMUSIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:11, 9 April 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bohra (clan)[edit]

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

Single source does not demonstrate notability. This group was mentioned in passing in a catalog list of names in a region. Note: I previously nominated this page for speedy deletion but it was declined as A7 does not apply to groups. I was unable to find any other refs for this with a Google search. Beakermeep^(talk) 22:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just also wanted to add (for clarity) that I am not sure what the claim is to notability. If you check the books search link above, the clan is mentioned in a few books (some re-issues of catalog type books), but the article doesn't state why this is important. Beakermeep^(talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see the notability here. Bali88 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there is enough notability in the source to keep this. This article is relatively new. Keep this, so that more content and sources can be added to it by other members in the future. -Afjdjhfdf (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, can you explain what the claim of notability is? That, to me, is what is missing. It's clear that this name/clan existed -- but why is that important? Beakermeep^(talk) 13:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is important as there are many famous people from this clan, whose articles are also in WP. See A D Bohra, Ramkumar Bohra, Karanvir Bohra. -Afjdjhfdf (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources. While there are undoubtedly notable people with this surname, there is no evidence of a clan of this name. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A number of policy-based issues were raised relative to the notability of an article on the term, on the ideology, and the neutrality of the article. Additional non-policy-based arguments were made and given low weight. There was a signficant consensus that the term does not reach WP:NEO. There was also a rough consensus that the ideology was at best covered if at all in other articles (usually Putinism was suggested), and the only voices discussing the neutrality of the page considered it an attack page. As such, there is no argument for preserving the content here, and there is a consensus for deletion, without prejudice against inclusion of some discussion of the term at other existing articles, if done in a neutral way, nor with prejudice against a pointer to said content in the already existing Russism disambiguation page. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russism (ideology)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DonaldDuck (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism and attack page. Similar to recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russiasm DonaldDuck (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refuse russian censors in Wikipedia.--Dim Grits 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim Grits (talk • contribs)

Ivanov-Sukharevsky was largely supportive of Vladimir Putin when he was first elected as President of Russia, describing him as an 'indispensable and extremely important politician' and the 'hyper-link between Marxism and Russism', although adding that 'his ideology reflects the past stage of history'.

– Suggesting WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M OlegSmirnov (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be in wide enough use, sources lacking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable neologism, POV, lack of really strong sources. delete -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it You can see many more references in Russian and Ukrainian versions of this article, from where additional information can be taken for the English verion. Ybelov (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian version had same Wikipedia:Neologism, Wikipedia:Attack page and WP:RS problems and is already deleted. --DonaldDuck (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it If there is a term (this particular one has more than 50k hits in Russian google, at least since 2008), there should be an article, that is what wiki is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A60:1573:7901:223:4EFF:FE75:5A0D (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have well sourced articles on Russian nationalism and Putinism to which this term could be redirected if it were in common use (I don't believe that it is). As of now, the article is not necessary and it content is not appropriate for merger, being a poorly sourced neologism written up in a highly POV style. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is anything worth keeping it can be merged into Putinism. Peacock (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It is quite far from being a combination of Russian nationalism and/or Putinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.5.211 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't speak to the quality of the Russian sources, but based on the English sources this seems like an attack page that relies on quasi-sources like policymic. The term "Russism" may deserve a mention though at Putinism#Ideology. Orser67 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedily, an important contemporary term which serves disambiguation for the modern Russian Anti-fascist movement. Exactly as Winston Churchill once said that "the fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not in wide use, more likely to be an attack page. Roman Yankovsky (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:NEO. Many of the keep votes here don't really advance an argument beyond "it exists, lets have an article", but the lack of credible sources using and defining this term presents serious WP:V problems. If kept, the article needs to have its clear POV cleaned up; I don't like Putin either, but the bias in the article is pretty strong even to my eyes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Deelfontein train collision[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. no fatalities and no long standing notability. the claim that the crash might have caused a new style of cicruit is unverified. I googled "secondary protection circuits" Deelfontein and only found WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Marshall Islands relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relationship is diplomatic recognition. given that Marshall Islands is a tiny nation, and Georgia a very long way away, it is unlikely there is any significant interaction between these 2 nations. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There is this link on the Georgian WP article. However, I can't read Georgian. Is it as (un)likely to have relations with Vanuatu based on your "...a tiny nation, and Georgia a very long way away..." rationale? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why are you mentioning Vanuatu? Most of the Georgian website is translated into English. All the countries Georgia has relations with is here http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=61 , whilst Marshall Islands gets a mention there is no subsite describing relations. We also need third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia established diplomatic relations with the Marshall Islands, partly in order to counteract Russia's efforts to persuade small nations into recognizing Georgia's breakaway entities, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In this regard, Georgia–Vanuatu relations are far more relevant as the island nation recognized Abkhazia, but then retracted its recognition. However, the Georgia–Marshall Islands interaction has been minimal and has very rarely come up even in the local news.--Kober^Talk 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The counter-argument would only lead, logically, to a merge of this stub into the generic foreign relations of Georgia article. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous topic for an article Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adiyeri Gangadharan[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient sources to prove the subject's notability per WP:BIO. Given reference is merely a passing mention. Photographs of awards were taken by the creator with an admitted WP:COI, no independent indication of notability. Drm310 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Author and there is no evidence of passing WP:Bio. True, the subject has won a couple of awards, but all of them appear to be minor awards. Salih (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a News paper link mentioned in the references section which mentions that Adiyeri Gangadharan was conferred Malayala Ratna Award by The Pondichery State and has been given to him in a function by the Chief minister of the State. The News paper, The Hindu is a very eminent one which is a leading National news paper in India. The Hindu Reference to the Award notification.

The Malayala ratna Award is a State Govt. level award in India sponsored by the Pondicherry Union territory. You can verify the Award details here Pondy Govt. Site Link.

Apart from the above,the page also holds the photos of the award and also many awards conferred to him by various institutions across India.

He is also the Chief Editor and Publishing owner of the Bharathadesom magazine which is now running nearing 6 years of establishment. You can check the registration details of the magazine from the "Registrar news papers of India" Site http://rni.nic.in/search_statelang.asp . Please select "Pondicherry" as the state and "Malayalam" as the language in the drop downs and Click "Submit" to view the results. The Magazine is listed as the second search result in the table.

If my statements which i always try to coin without having any personal or professional conflicts of interest is not believable, Kindly arrange to check if there are any editors based from Mahe region in Kerala. Regarding the notability of the person kindly verify it with any editors from Mahe region.

Kindly let me know if this is enough of removing the delete and also the COI tag from the page. I am ready to even submit more details of each and every line that appears on the page.

Thanks -- Acatgain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and User:Salih. Harsh (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Kindly Provide the counter argument details Mr. Harsh. I have provided the details above proofs over the govt. websites for the Notablity question of User:Salih.

Thanks, Acatgain (talk

Acatgain, you haven't provided the proof for the notability of the award. If the said award is notable, could you, at least, name few notable people who have previously won this award? Salih (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The Malayala ratna Award is a State Govt. level award in India sponsored by the Pondicherry Union territory. You can verify the Award details here PONDICHERRY Govt. Site Link.
The award description page states that "Honouring the Senior Scholars in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu languages with Tamilmamani, Malayala Ratna and Telugu Ratna Awards with cash award."
The Eligibility criteria states as shown below in the site.

Description of the Scheme: AWARDING OF KALAIMAMANI AWARD

Benefits: Kalaimamani - 6 awards

(in the field of Art, Literature, Dance, Music, Drama & Folk Malayala Ratna - 2 awards

Art Telugu Ratna - 2 awards)

The award contain Cash of Rs.50, 000/-

Eligibility

(i) The scholars to be selected for the awards shall be of above 30 years and above.

(ii) 'The awardee should have published books of high reputed in poetry, prose and research articles in literature and grammar in their respective languages and should have participated in literary and research.'

(iii) The awardee should not have been given any such award by other Government and Organisations like Universities etc.

(iv) The awardee should be the native of Puducherry or residence in Puducherry continuously for a period of 5 years before the date of selection for the award.

(v) In case of fulfillment of all the conditions preference shall be given to the age and to the longevity in Puducherry.

Don't you consider a Indian State Government or an State government award notable. You seems to be challenging the very fine fabric of The Republic of India.

If you are not competent enough to understand the seriousness kindly rope in few experts from this field.

A. C. Arun 03:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Acatgain (talk

It seems the award you've mentioned is a minor one and was given away only once, i.e., in the year 2007 the year in which Adiyeri Gangadharan won it. You may also note that not all awards given by state/central governments are notable. I am only challenging the notability of the subject of the article. It's your imagination that I am challenging the very fine fabric of The Republic of India! Salih (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Florencio[edit]

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

Declined prod. Nominating for deletion as it seems to fail WP:BLP. The sources provided don't indicate that this person is significant, only that he was involved in things. The awards are borderline, and I'm not sure they justify BLP. There's also significant conflict of interest here - Florencio has been actively editing as Jonflorencio (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject may meet point #8 of WP:MUSICBIO as having won the 2004 London International Award for Best Original Music Scoring. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my comment above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed nassif[edit]

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

Recently deleted article (due to BLP PROD) has been remade. No independent reliable sources. Also the sources that are there (which aren't independent or reliable) don't correspond with what is said in the body of the article (e.g. Source 1 is about how he has directed 350 music videos, however the sources comes up with a page with Episode 99 and Waleed Nassif in brackets). ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 23:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaz[edit]

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

Article is about the word for suffix in Pashto - which grammatically seems to act like - a suffix. I don't see this as notable. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:ENGLISH, and WP:FORRED. The current content is an indiscriminate list, and the concept is suffix ("Ashafaz (Pashto/Persian/Arabic:اشفاز) literally means suffixes"). Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2014

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aclame ao Senhor[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Part of the problem is that the subject is a Portuguese-language album but part of the problem is the SPA account that created doesn't know the notability guidelines particularly well. A subject matter or language expert may be needed to determine if there are RSes to help prove notability. I can't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Kamrup[edit]

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

The page Ancient Kamrup, created Oct 19, 2013, is a WP:CFORK of the article Kamarupa and is proposed for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON#Reasons_for_deletion number 5. Chaipau (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now listed this incomplete nomination. Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It looks to me as if the two are covering much the same ground. If so, the solution is to Merge. However, I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I can't think of a reason to keep the two separate. Maybe add a redirect from one name to the other? Jordanee155 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. A pattern suggests this !vote was made to hide the editors tracks and true intentions as a SPA. -- GreenC 16:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wimarshana Wijesuriya[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO.. a non-notable individual. Dubious citations JMHamo (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can see, while three of the six citations currently provided are useless for notability (two from YouTube and one an article by the subject), the other three come from two reasonably substantial reviews of one of his books in national, apparently reputable Sri Lankan newspapers. Probably not quite enough for notability without more sources (which I have not found), but not so hopeless as the nomination seems to suggest. PWilkinson (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Making History (series). Redirect without deletion to allow merging out of content from article's history ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making History: The Great War[edit]

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

All I could find was an announcement article and two interviews for this game. And the announcement article came from the same guys that did the interview. Interview + Announcement, other interview. Delete per WP:GNG, or redirect to Making History (series) (which also involves deleting the contents of this article). Odie5533 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (to Making History (series)), which could be fleshed out quite a bit. Also very suspicious how this page magically appeared in a single edit from a brand new account. Vectro (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Budeaux Foundation Church Of England Junior School[edit]

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

Article is non-notable and poorly written, as well as not having any sources. G S Palmer (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The consensus is that primary schools are NN, but articles can be merged (briefly) to an article on the place where they are or one on schools in their area. However the article does not even say where the school is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried and failed to find sources beyond the school's own site and the city council. But I cleaned it up a bit. It's in Plymouth, as the person who categorised it had correctly figured out. It should be noted that the article creator is very new and probably in the age range of the school: 7–11 years. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, earlier versions of this article didn't adequately deal with the notable aspects of this historic school and quite a lot of sources are available. The article has now received some attention. The information could be merged to St Budeaux but the school is notable in itself and I think a merge would unbalance the article on the parish. Just as a remark, it is topics, not articles, that are considered for notability and it is not the case that junior schools are inherently non-notable but rather that their notability has to be positively established. Thincat (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability seems to be the school's early founding. If that's notable on its own then I'll change this to a keep. The claims to being the oldest school in the area and possibly even the oldest free school in Britain are unsupported by any reliable sources I can access. They may be true, but I can't verify them. The possibly the oldest free school claim is particularly nebulous and probably shouldn't even be in the article. Meters (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we generally keep schools, and this one appears to have a claim to fame -- Tawker (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally don't keep articles on primary schools unless they are notable. Is the age of this school sufficient for notability? Meters (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Generally all schools are kept regardless of notability I think. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spirited defense by User:Tokyogirl79, as usual. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decoding the Past[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I found:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/arts/television/26stew.html?_r=0 - Not about the series as a whole, but about one episode in particular
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/secretskoran.php - Not sure if this is considered reliable source. It's a review of two episodes on DVD
http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/voices/the-history-channel-steps-into-reality-tv - Show is mentioned only once in a list of History Channel shows
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2012.16.1.61 - Show is briefly mentioned, not significantly covered
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/oct/oxford102706.html - PR piece about a professor who appeared on the show

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked at all of the sources, but I can say that the DVD Verdict review can count as a reliable source to show notability, as can the NYT source. I'll look at the others and get back to you on those. Offhand, the JSTOR source can be somewhat useful since it is in a peer-reviewed journal and it's being cited as a notable example of something... even if what they're talking about isn't particularly positive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use the UD source because it's sort of primary, as they're talking about one of their own professors that managed to get on the show. If it wasn't about someone that worked for them or was related to them in some way we might have been able to use it, but not in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today source wouldn't be very useful, as it's pretty much a trivial source. The JSTOR source can be trivial, but then that's from a far more credible source (peer-reviewed journal) and holds a little more weight. I don't know that the JSTOR source will be the one that keeps it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards a weak keep. We have a few reviews for the show, even if it's just specific episodes, and the series has been mentioned in various academic texts in different fashions. (ABC-CLIO lists it as a source while another pretty much considers it to be the herpes of the history television world, for example.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found just enough to where I think that it could squeak by notability guidelines. The DVD release of the Koran episodes received quite a bit of coverage, but it makes more sense to have one article for the show as a whole as opposed to articles about the individual episodes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (television episode)[edit]

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

This list is quite pointless because it is pretty common to have the first episode aired be called the pilot. Obviously we can't fit every episode that has ever aired with the first broadcast episode named Pilot. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all the redlinks. This page should be a set index for all existing TV episode articles named "Pilot". I will also support merging to the main Pilot disambiguation page. In any case, a list of these various exiting articles named "Pilot" with parenthetical disambiguation titles needs to be somewhere in the main article namespace per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zzyxx, but in addition to the redlink purge, remove other show episodes that are just redirects to 'List of (show)#Episodes' or season compendium articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zzyzx11, without the redlinked entries. Looks like a perfectly legitimate set index to me. Also, either change the criterion so that pilot episodes not titled "Pilot" are allowed or delete the entries that don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete redlinks and things that aren't called "Pilot". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename List of pilot television episodes, or something like that. There are too many in here, and in international TV show reality, to fit comfortably into the Television pilot article. Many users, per the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, like to browse using lists. So long as it sticks to notable TV series, this is a limited and defineable set. Further discussions about inclusion criteria could be done at its talk page. Novickas (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete the redlinks. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Materialscientist per speedy deletion criteria G5 and G11 (non-admin closure). Sideways713 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard of Broken Dreams: A 40 Year Journey through Portage Avenue - Displacement, Dislocation, and How Osmosis Can Resolve Community Blight'[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. References are unrelated to book. reddogsix (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Kind of pointless creating an article with refs completely unrelated .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*book was nominated for a donner - keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppetryofdapianist (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Obvious sock of User:TippdeepSingh, so blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might actually be speedyable as spam, due to the way the article is written. As far as the awards go... nominations mean absolutely nothing, for multiple reasons. First is that anyone can submit a book for the Donner Prize, as long as the book fits within a relatively loose amount of guidelines. Authors can even submit their own work- it's not exactly like getting into an awards competition where you're selected by a specific group of judges. Secondly is that nominations don't give notability- only wins do. The problem people ran into with this is that most places will nominate their work for every prize they can, in an attempt to boost notability for stuff that really isn't that notable. As a result years ago it was decided that only wins will give notability and even then, only with very specific awards. Less than 5% of any award out there for any given subject will give notability and about .1% of that will give notability enough to keep on that basis alone. Now as far as Gentrification Weekly goes, that absolutely wouldn't be considered an award that would give notability even if it won it. However the biggest problem I ran through is that there just aren't any reliable sources covering this book. It deals with a notable person, but that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED for the book. This just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beer buckets[edit]

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

Non-notable game lacking support and made up in one day. reddogsix (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if reliable source have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winchinchala Winchinchala, (von der Vogelweide) author[edit]

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

Author fails WP:GNG and WP:Author. No indication of significant coverage or special significance in the literary world. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a possible single-purpose account. Seems like it would qualify for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. Vectro (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Gifford[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR RadioFan (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article does not seem to even make a claim of notability. However, I should note that the author, Jeffman52001 (talk · contribs), has a long edit history. Maybe this article could be userified on deletion? Vectro (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google Books or Google Web. Not on the Chinese wikipedia. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). Article creator seems to be on the journal's editiorial board, indicating a conflict of interest. Vectro (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes did not properly assert why the list was notable ina way that could move the scales to their side. However, the delete votes did explain why the list was not notable. → Call me Hahc21 01:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 meter times by NFL players[edit]

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

Textbook example of Original research. Almost all these meter times weren't within official NFL rules, but times of athletes who happened to later become NFL players for the most part in track meets so WP:NOT#INFO applies as well. No reliable sourcing that talks about this grouping as a whole. Delete Secret ^account 00:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is original research. Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the motivation for the "grouping as a whole" seems unclear, this article attempts to show how NFL players (from all decades) rank in terms of an objective speed standard. There seems to be a lack of crossover knowledge by many NFL fans of track and the factors which influence recorded times (wind, altitude, hand timing). This is evidenced by 100m times listed on many wikipedia pages for NFL players. People seem to just take the fastest time known (or rumored), and not bother to cite if it was wind-aided. The list originated as cited, and I thought wikipedia would be a good place to host it, because others could update it as new times are run. It has nothing to do with "official NFL rules". It is about speed, objectively measured. - ClintCummins, 7 April 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A good faith addition, but it's not a notable topic and is clearly original research. Perhaps the author could move it to a more appropriate wiki. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR and the NFL isn't interested in this particular statistic. I mean, how many times does someone rip off a 100 yard (not meter) run (other than Devin Hester)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you'll find it passes WP:NOTSTATSBOOK: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This list article does that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no way in the world is this original research. The editor didn't go out and personally time these runs, they were looked up from multiple third party sources and then assembled in a table. Every one of them. This clearly falls under WP:CALC as acceptable with details at essay WP:COUNTSORT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This entire topic is WP:SYNTHESIS. There's no indication that the topic of 100 meter times by NFL players has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that the author had to look up the data "from multiple third party sources and then [assemble them] in a table" is evidence of synthesis. Pburka (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with list articles. That's how list articles get written--an editor looks up the data and then puts them in a list. If it was all in one place, then there would be no need for the list because it exists somewhere else and the entry would be redundant or even copyvio.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:LISTN says that a list is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are sources which discuss 40 yard times and the NFL. There are none which discuss 100 m times. Pburka (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Definitely SYNTHESIS because the NFL doesn't use metric units, period. What next? List of quarterbacks who have thrown for 5000 m in a season? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - 100 m dash is one of several standard measures for speed. It's not synthesis at all. The editor didn't dream up a race called the 100 m dash that no one has ever run before. It's a standard measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not for football, the other football, basketball, the marathon, etc. Show me a football scout who drooled over a prospect's 100 m time. Ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I already showed the NFL discussion of Usain Bolt, lets go back Justin Gatlin, Carl Lewis, Jim Hines and Bob Hayes (with a Super Bowl ring) are all Olympic Gold medalists in the 100 meters who got interest from the NFL. Of the American Gold Medalists since 1964 (that's 50 years ago), only Maurice Greene did not get such interest. There are also several 4x100 meters relay gold medalists on the list, plus the Junior World Record Holder; Jeff Demps and the Masters World Record Holder (after he won a Super Bowl ring); Willie Gault. By the way the NFL doesn't limit its search for speed to 100 meters, they also tried a 200 meter world record holder; Tommie Smith and a 110 meter hurdles world record holder; Renaldo Nehemiah (who got a Super Bowl ring). Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd still like to see references that say a 100m time is important measure for NFL players. All the examples that have been given just talk about scouting fast players and most of them never played in the NFL; the Gatlin article says the Texans were not going to sign him regardless. I still don't see why this list itself is notable. It's well-referenced, but none of the references talk about the list as a whole. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Every one of the people on this list played in the NFL. That is the qualifier to be on the list. That is documentable. Gatlin failed to make the NFL, he's not on the list. The challenge was whether NFL scouts were interested in people with fast 100 meter times. They clearly are. Actually they are interested in general speed, the fast 100 meter times represent that someone has speed. Carl Lewis, with absolutely no football experience, would not have been drafted if he were not fast as regarded by his fast 100 meter times (and his 4 Olympic Gold Medals that year). They try to take these people on as a "project" just like NBA drafts 7' 6" people to see if they can be taught to do something with a basketball. Some turn into Jim "Oops" Hines. They said Nehemiah was a failure, because he didn't make a lot of catches. But he still required double coverage whenever he was on the field, so what did that do for the rest of his team?--they did win the Super Bowl. By the way, I'm learning more and more about this from the sources I've already listed. Trackinfo (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The discussion is getting cluttered with things that do not pertain to whether this list is notable, IMO. Where is a reliable source that says 100m times are notable for NFL players? — X96lee15 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Here are a few articles discussing the subject from various perspectives: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. A book with more mis-information [33] Even a Raiders player quoted discussing the concept: "no team in the NFL could match-up with a possible 4x100-meter relay. [34] Trackinfo (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is exactly what wikipedia does so well, an assemblage of information from multiple sources. Contrary to the assertion above, it is a frequently discussed subject.see here, here, here here etc etc. And without a source, if you didn't notice, most people get it wrong. On another wiki, in the process of googling this, I had to correct the answer. Wikipedia has the correct answer, thanks to the IP editor who created this list.

This list is extremely well sourced using respected track and field sources. It took a lot of work by some editor or editors. All-athletics.com is a reliable source. When I discovered this and added to the list, I supplemented with USATF sources, the national governing body of the sport. This information can still get improved, but it is not inaccurate. If this information were to have been copied directly from another site, that would be a copyvio.

We could get into a side issue about whether 40 yard dash times are more relevant to the NFL. That is NOT the question being answered here. When comparing between the rules or procedures of two different sports you will get conflict. NFL standards for the 40 yard dash are terrible by track and field standards, for which I had to add a special section to the world records list because editors who do not understand this concept, kept trying to put in the wrong data. Based on unreliable sources I am finding in the current google search, even our listing Deion Sanders as the record holder could be inaccurate [35]--the system is inaccurate. Track and field measurements are much more scientific, but their shortest races are still too long for direct NFL relevance. 100 metres is the most universal distance available. Pure speed is not the only issue in comparing the athletes, NFL players wear heavy padding, and they have to be able to do something with the ball (catch it, carry it, knock it down). Even the NFL themselves pose the question of comparison. Its a popular question. Many athletes obviously have tried to cross between the two sports, some succeed and some fail.

Because great works like this have been deleted in the past, I've copied this to my sandbox. In other words, you are not going to save wikipedia one byte of data storage. If wikipedia deletionists choose to rid themselves of this information, I'll just have to find another wiki to post this information on. In the overall scheme of things, NFL trivia is not the most important thing in the world, but the world should not be prevented from having the knowledge we can accumulate by having this project we call wikipedia simply at the whim of a handful of short sighted individuals. Trackinfo (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. You're undermining your own position every time you try to make a point. "When comparing between the rules or procedures of two different sports you will get conflict." ==> SYNTHESIS. "...their shortest races are still too long for direct NFL relevance." ==> SYNTHESIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity, you are using some pretty convoluted reasoning to try to come up with an excuse to deflate an argument. A statement that "Apples are not Oranges" is not a great leap into the world of synthesized opinion--its an obvious statement of fact.Trackinfo (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe that the comments are valid and worth considering. Any comment that could be considered "synthesis" is here in AFD and not in the article itself (at least, not that I can find-and that's "editing" not "deletion" if it is there). The comments are germane to the discussion and can help indicate how or why readers would find interest in the topic. It speaks to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Also WP:ITSINTERESTING doesn't carry any weight. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even discounting readership interest (I'm not saying that I find it interesting), I still disagree that Trackinfo is undermining the keep position. One or two of the statements might not apply, but the argument as a whole is worthy of being considered. Further, my comments are not "it is interesting" but deeper into "how or why readers would find interest" which is of more value I believe.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that NFL teams use speed as a major consideration in drafting players (especially for certain positions)?[36] Or does that need to be proven further? Can we agree that the sport of track and field is the sport that most directly tests an athletes running speed? Or does that need to be proven further? With those two facts, why is the comparison between track and field's fastest (outdoor) race and NFL players illogical? Maybe there should also be an article about tall NBA players . . . List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history Oh look there is. Do you want to attack that too? Trackinfo (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't List of fastest players in National Football League history. There's no evidence that 100 meter times of NFL players are notable. Pburka (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka does have a point, in that "what makes a 100 m dash" the right article? Why not the 40 m, or the 99 m, or the 101 m? Or "the fastest players in the NFL" article. I answer that the 100 m dash (and its historical comparison the 100 yard dash) have been widely held as a standard race. Nobody runs a 99 m dash, at least not that I can find... and certainly not widely held and recorded. This list shows how NFL athletes have performed in this standard measure historically and provides some additional insight and perspective.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field has held races at distances from 50 yards, 50 metres, 60 metres, and other odd increments. Most of those racing opportunities occur indoors where the size of the building causes the lack of standardization--particularly back through history. 100 metres is the most universal distance where we can expect most sprinters will have had the opportunity to have run. Even the prevalence of the 100 yard dash before metrication was offset by key races like the Olympics and Olympic Trials being held in metric distances. All this increases the statistical relevance. In the pursuit of deleting an article, you choose to ignore the fact that 100 meters is the best measurement of comparable athletic speed track and field has to offer. The number of blogs discussing this concept shows a commonality of that understanding amongst the public. An additional article discussing speed in the NFL would certainly be welcome. This list would be an appropriate corollary. You might also want to create a list of combine 40 yard times, which is the best the NFL has to offer. We could also elaborate on the inaccuracy of flying start, hand times to the hundredth of a second. There is plenty of knowledge to add. Trackinfo (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "blogs discussing this concept," but can you find multiple reliable sources discussing this? If not, the topic is interesting but of insufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NFL Scouting Combine is a widely covered event (at least in the world of sports), and perhaps the single most covered aspect of the combine is the "pure speed" of an NFL prospect. Although the 40 yd dash is the event used, the 100m is comparable. What I think this article needs is a summary of secondary sources showing that "speed" is a much discussed topic by reliable sources (e.g. an ESPN article talking about how NFL front offices value the 40 yd dash time). For example, former Raiders owner Al Davis was perhaps the NFL decision-maker most known for being enamored with speed, and supposedly this played a role in the Raiders drafting Nnamdi Asomugha, Michael Huff, and Darrius Heyward-Bey, among other prospects. I have no doubt that these articles exist, and if I were less busy right now, I would add them myself. Orser67 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale is pure WP:OR Secret ^account 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald's discussion, including that lists in Wikipedia are great at this kind of stuff. Didn't consult other Keep votes. I thought I just saw this topic in Yahoo News, actually. I think think in the last day or two there was some significant news coverage, but maybe it was about 40 yard dash times of athletes up for drafting. The topic is notable; maybe need another article on 40 yard or 40 meter times, too. Or should that be another table in a renamed list-article, something like Best sprint times by NFL players? :) --doncram 00:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT Secret ^account 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. I haven't seen any reliable sources that talk about the subject of NFL players running the 100m dash. All the sources given in the article are reliable, but they are combined to form an article that is not notable. Maybe the article can be reformed to cover fastest 40-yard dash times of NFL players (which is probably notable). This article is an example of an editor creating a topic they think is notable, but with no reliable sources to establish its notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well several people including you agree that the topic of fastest NFL players is a notable topic. So shouldn't this be Kept? And edited to include fastest 40 yard or 40 meter times / probably moved to a slightly different title. Seriously, this should be kept and adapted. A table of fastest 100 meter times is fine to keep included. About fastest 100 times of NFL player, here is this wikianswer Q&A, this YahooAnswer Q&A, and this about a 100m Olympian (within 4x100 relay) becoming an NFL player, and there's more. The 40 yard or 40 meter is more important, but the 100 is indeed often measured / known / asked about.
- About fastest 40 yard or 40 meter times of NFL players, there are many sources explicitly about the topic, including this at statisticbrain, this at bleacherreport, [this photo set at NFL.COM]. According to the first of those, "The 40 yard dash has long been a way of evaluating the speed of football players by scouts for the NFL Draft. The origin comes from the average distance of a punt being 40 yards." --doncram 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this were Top 40 yard times by NFL players I would say keep. But it's not, and it can't be changed into that without deleting all the content and starting over. 100 m times are not relevant to 40 yard times. Pburka (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I've added about 15 sources to this discussion, so far you have loudly expressed your opinion, without citing a single source. Trackinfo (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My position is that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources showing that comparisons of 100 m times are relevant to the NFL. I can't cite a source, as the key to my argument is that such sources do not exist. You've provided some forums showing that fans are interested in this comparison (this is irrelevant), and showing that some NFL players have run 100 m races (also irrelevant - I'm sure some have also run marathons). For example, one of your purported sources ([37]) is actually about 40 yd times and then mentions, almost as a non sequitur, that the Jamaican 4x100 team would probably beat any team the NFL put together. Do you have any reliable sources comparing the 100 m times of NFL players or prospects? Pburka (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comisar family[edit]

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

Non-notable family lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original author, OhioTruths (talk · contribs), has created a few other pages that were deleted, namely Ohio's Future, Virginia Kunkle Jones, and Jane Dudley Portman. I don't want to say this editor is a single-purpose account, but editing has been limited to a small number of articles related to Rob Portman. Vectro (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as wrong venue; this belongs on redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) Sideways713 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonism[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted“Commonism” is a distinct term not identically with “communism” and frequently used by commons-activists. This is a source explicitly stating that these are distinct concepts. But it should not be my duty to prove that: The word “commonism” is not even mentioned in the article communism, this redirect is an unsourced claim that these two things are identical. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)))[reply]

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