< 21 December	23 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable advocacy organization. Lawsuits they have filed have gotten press, but nothing about the group appears to be available. PROD contested. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and my recommendation is made without any doubt. Although some of the references are to non-independent sources, this organization is an important part of the history of human rights in Louisiana, and has been covered extensively by the Baton Rouge Advocate, the newspaper of record for Louisiana's state capital. These articles are hidden behind a paywall, but that does not disqualify them in any way. As the organization no longer exists, there are no promotional issues. The many independent reliable sources, taken as a whole, make it clear that this organization is both notable and of historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you offer up some of these articles that talk specifically about the organization? I understand they're behind a paywall, but if it's about them, we should be able to get headlines, maybe opening paragraphs, or some sort of significant evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a source. This book describes the group's legal strategy. This CBS News report, published several years after it shut down, recognizes the group's historical significance. This gay magazine gives significant coverage to the group. Here is a description from a Tulane University website. Here's coverage from the The Herald-Times, an Indiana daily paper. Here's coverage from the The Florida Times-Union. When a group exists primarily for the purpose of taking legal action, then significant coverage of their lawsuits mentioning that group confers notability on that group. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the problem: with one exception (a PR blast reprinted in Ambush), none of these are about the organization. Plenty of groups exist primarily for taking legal action, they do not simply become notable because they can file a lawsuit, as any group or person can do that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Thargor. I am the article writer. I researched the organization and found countless references to the group and what they did during their existence. I've never written an article for Wikipedia before, but I thought with an organization like this that it should not be too difficult for a first article. I understand, Mr. Thargor, that you had noted that the lawsuit the organization was a part of for ten years had good citations, but that you did not believe that the citations existed to show that everything else the organization had done made it notable. When I read your request to delete, I did some research to determine what I needed to do to address your concern. (I was under the mistaken assumption at the time that I could not use pay-to-view articles, which was why I did not include them initially. But when you rightly highlighted, I believe, the fact that the article could use more citations to show what it had done, I knew I would have to find some way to include those fee-based articles). This organization, while it had a high-profile lawsuit that garnered national interest (fighting the sodomy laws in Louisiana), what they were doing on the statewide level (organizing to address anti-gay legislation, working with student groups, lobbying in the legislature) would never attract the same level of interest - this did not necessarily make it any less notable - they would just be written about in the state's paper of record, the Baton Rouge Advocate, as opposed to the New York Times or the Times-Picayune. The group did, though, get press every year from The Advocate. And the eight or so of the pay-to-view articles that I included to address your concern, gave a good and thorough, I believe, telling of what this organization was accomplishing. In its current state, just to summarize, the article has about 9 citations from such sources as the New York Times, CBS News, the New Orleans TImes-Picayune, &c., to reference its sodomy lawsuit - again a high-profile issue that you felt was well cited. For their less high-profile work, although important and regular, of working with the legislature (lobbying, educating, &c.), I cited 8 articles (from the Baton Rouge Advocate, which reported on our legislative activity) which clearly show, in my opinion, what this organization was doing and that it was notable. Is your concern now that I listed these new citations to address your concern, Mr. Thargor, that the Baton Rouge Advocate is not acceptable for citations or that maybe to be notable all of the organization's work needs to be in the New York Times or maybe the Times Picayune. If that is the notability bar that must be reached then it would be impossible to reach that bar. To tell a truth, I think regardless of the fact that their lawsuit got most of the attention, what they were doing day-in and day-out to address the lives of Louisiana's glbt citizens, to me, was the more notable work. I appreciate your input and feedback, Mr. Thargor. I do believe that you've made my article better and I hope you can give me some support to continue doing that. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet GNG, and as the first? or one of the first organizations of its kind in Louisiana would be a remarkable part of history. The only other way this information should be reworked is as a lengthy history of same-sex marriage in the state. Either way it's a keeper. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources show it meets the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several sources are cited above, I see no suggestion that this article is in any way falsified, nor that anyone actually disputes what we have. What remains is to find some better sources that more fully talk about the group but due to systematic bias against LGBT in the state that still persists, it will be an unhill climb. But a quick search on Google Scholar serves up a few.[1]. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you Sportfan5000 for your contributions. For the benefit of the folks reviewing this article, I checked the search tool referenced and a few others that Google provides, and discovered 7 more reference sources for my article about this organization - 2 are scholarly books, 1 is an NGLTF Student Organizing Handbook, and 4 are new (unique) Ambush Magazine articles. I hope this contributes in a positive way towards the GNG guidelines. THanks! BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, After 10 years, it will be a history! Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328's clear explanation of the sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is the Baton Rouge Advocate the "newspaper of record" for Louisiana's state capital, it's both the official journal of the state (for publication of such things as the Acts of the Legislature, etc.) as well as the daily newspaper of the state's capital city and now also the only daily newspaper for the city of New Orleans. The idea that the lawsuits filed by the organization got press recognition while somehow mysteriously not recognizing the plaintiff therein is silly. CowboyinBRLA —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cavendish Laboratory. There don't seem to be any independent sources, hence there is no sourced information that could be merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Condensed Matter group[edit]

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

I don't think groups in a laboratory really merit their own articles. This would I think be better served in the main article on the Cavendish. James^x12345 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only get around 100 Google hits total. But they might get mentioned quite a lot in scientific journals. It seems fairly popular on Google Scholar, for example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that asserts the notability of the group, just shows it is producing work in academic journals. All university science departments have workgroups with a focus in particular disciplines, and whilst this is an especially large and prestigious one, I'm not sure it merits inclusion. It might be worth finding out if other similar groups have articles, and if so what consensus is surrounding them. James^x12345 11:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cavendish Laboratory. I don't see this being a subject that on its own would meet WP:GNG. It would seem more appropriate that any coverage be handled in the main article unless new sources arrive that specifically demonstrate the notability of this group. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Air Max[edit]

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

Article written like an ad listing a number of models of shoes made by Nike, with a single reference given: a now non-existant article in the Daily Mirror in 2007. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article's current state would mean that deletion would be no great loss. However, the line is a fairly notable one; [2] being in-depth coverage in a WP:RS, whilst there are [3] and [4], which I'm not sure about reliability-wise. Shoes don't tend to get coverage in mainstream media, but I think this line is notable enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement (I had a quick go at it) but this is a very famous and iconic shoe brand, as the references above show, and also[5][6][7][8][9] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do we need separate articles for every single line of shoes etc made by Nike? Short mentions in the main article about the company should, IMHO, be more than enough. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Kelly[edit]

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

Article originally listed him as co-founder of JetBlue, but a search found otherwise. Only listed as the company's secretary and general counsel. There are brief mentions of him in news sources, but simply stating his position, nothing in depth that talks about him enough to amount to significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG JakenBox (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete wp:A7 - no assertion of importance. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but no speedy He fails WP:GNG but the article does assert importance, because it lists him as Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of JetBlue. Those are important positions, so no A7, but he still doesn't meet GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trooth[edit]

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears a long way from passing wp:MusicBio. Not even sure he passes wp:A7 Neonchameleon (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO LibStar (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur that this does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 .Article already deleted under G4.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Big D is once again trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Stop rewarding bad faith editing. WP:IAR, delete this to help keep Wikipedia clear of vanity spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big D Kuwait. duffbeerforme (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note is made of creator's apparent conflict of interest. The new article does have more ref's and content. I am not convinced this is sufficiently improved to decline the speedy. Especially given the promotionality of the current iteration. Dlohcierekim 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the hard work creator has put into sourcing, there is not significant, independent coverage in reliable sourcing to show subject meets GNG. Sourcing includes primary sources and youtube; other sourcing is not of sufficient depth. Dlohcierekim 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Subject does not meet WP:Music Dlohcierekim 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of philosophy is not proven and it is possible harmful[edit]

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

The title of this article is mostly incoherent but could be "The benefits of philosophy are not proven and it is possibly harmful"? Is it a suitable subject? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)===Benefits of philosophy is not proven and it is possible harmful[reply]

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

Note: was cut and paste moved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial quotation - at best transwiki to Wikiquote, but I'm not convinced it's worth it. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be included in Philosophy of education or Philosophy, but I see no evidence that it needs its own article. SchreiberBike talk 22:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brockton Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

A community-vased orchestra in a city of 90,000 is not likely to be notable; all the references are local. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. With lots of significant coverage in The Boston Globe, I don't view all of the references as being local. Source examples include: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hrm ... given that there are over forty national capitals with a population smaller than Brockton's, that alone is no reason to delete, and nom's suggestion to that effect is entirely subjective. Article is well-referenced by several daily newspapers, and the Boston Globe has national scope -- this isn't a case of an article exclusively sourced by a local free weekly rag. Ravenswing 09:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – well referenced with significant coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for small towns and cities near major international cities, information about local events often appears in the large city's newspapers. This creates some difficulty as compared with towns that do not have such nearby papers. The NYT covers NYC local events, and even though it is my city, I do not consider all of them therefore significant, DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Warburton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject appears to still fail our WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This non-notable author was non-notable in 2011, as explained incisively at that time by MelanieN, and remains non-notable in the final days of 2013. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (striking Delete, see below) Well, well. Another SPA-written stub about this person. This time, in addition to his non-notable self-published books, he has co-written (which probably means ghost-written) a book with Dennis Rodman. That book did attract some mainstream notice, but all of the coverage was about super-celeb Rodman, with at best a passing mention of Warburton. Notability is not inherited, and Warburton does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AUTHOR allows for co-authors. It says "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work .. that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (emphasis added). A ghost writer is usually afforded the same notability as the book subject. I have not researched this particular book to see how notable it is but co-author is valid grounds for arguing for notability. The reviews don't need to mention the author, CREATIVE is based on reviews of works, not the artist personally (GNG is about the person). -- GreenC 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable ghost writer per AUTHOR (comment above). Some coverage of Dennis the Wild Bull: NY Daily News, NESN, MLive, CBS Chicago, Yahoo Sports, Time magazine, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, CTV News, NBC Sports. As a ghost writer he will naturally not be mentioned in the sources but the sources cover the work which is what CREATIVE #3 is about, reviews of the works of which he is a co-creator. -- GreenC 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unaware of the "co-creator" loophole in the WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines, and I don't agree with it. It apparently provides that even the most obscure ghostwriter will become "notable" if they happen to hook up with a famous person - and thus co-produce something which receives coverage because of the famous person's involvement. Looks like WP:INHERITED to me. A guideline is a guideline and presumably was based on consensus, so I am striking my "delete" !vote above; however, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for a subject I still regard as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though just writing for a famous person isn't enough, need multiple reviews in reliable sources, not all of Rodman's books have good coverage but Dennis the Wild Bull is exceptional. It's not really a loophole, books are a type of creative work like movies and plays that include multiple people who played a significant role. Usually books are single-authored but in some cases multiple people played a significant role. A book illustrator would be another example if the book had a lot of illustrations. -- GreenC 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read all of the links above, except one that I couldn't reach, and not a single one is a review of the book, or even indicates that the writer was holding a physical copy of the book. Many were published before the book's release. One is a home town paper's profile of the illustrator, in the vein of "local boy makes good". Several mention lack of information about the content, focus on the cover art, the brief summary on the book's website and quote Rodman's interviews mentioning the book. This is all coverage, which one calls "Internet buzz" about a celebrity book event, all focused on the "bad boy writes kid's book" hook. Rodman is notable. The book, lacking actual reviews, isn't in my judgment. And neither is the co-author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR says "independent periodical articles or reviews". -- GreenC 20:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we need to conclude that the book is significant or important. That celebrity buzz is very thin gruel for that claim, since I see zero evidence that any of those writers actually read the book, and clear evidence that most of them didn't. It is vapor coverage, at least regarding the book itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Other celebrity authors publish books that don't get this kind of attention. It's more than "buzz" it's unusual coverage. The sources contain plot outlines - it's a children's picture book so not much else to say - they are all headlined about the book, it's not vapor. Anyway we are not limited to formal reviews only - the notability guidelines are more generous. -- GreenC 21:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodman has published other books that didn't get this attention. Actually Rodman's best known book, Bad As I Wanna Be, was a best seller - but its ghost writer, Tim Keown, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The coverage of the current book actually IS "buzz", and as Cullen noted, all of it is a variation on "bad boy writes children's book". None of the buzz is about the CONTENT of the book, which is what Warburton contributed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we need to look into an article for Tim Keown, Wikipedia has gaps of coverage. I'm not sure what "buzz" means, it's a pejorative term without clear definition, but we know what notable means ("significant coverage in reliable sources"). All of these are reliable sources and they are headlined about the book, and contain enough material to write an article about the book (WP:WHYN). Although the sources contain the narrative "bad boy writes book", they also contain information about the book. -- GreenC 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty to be said about children's picture books that are actually notable: they are reviewed, win awards, and are described in books about children's literature. And this co-author fails WP:GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that a subject is notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. You don't have to meet both. He meets WP:AUTHOR. A book is Wikipedia notable based on coverage it receives, and he did play a role in creating somethings that would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't bring myself to agree with the assertion made above that someone who is not widely acknowledged as the author of a particular work can gain notability just from being involved. Using this logic being the cameraman of a successful film would catapult one to notability. As far as I can see there is no substantial sources for this BLP and I think it ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It's not just "being involved" you are right, it's a significant role. For movies it's typically director, producer, writer(s) and lead actors. -- GreenC 16:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a ghost writer. Their name is on all the books they have written alone or with others. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMHO the subject could even pass the letter of WP:AUTHOR but passing a SNG is not a guarantee that a subject should be included in our encyclopedia. Here we have zero chance of passing GNG and even WP:AUTHOR is met in a very borderline way. Not enough in my view. Cavarrone 16:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, you have to pass either the WP:GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. There is more than one way to prove something is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and Wikipedia:Notability (people) is also quite clear when it says " meeting one or more (additional criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". I'm not against SNGs, but SNGs are not the "Sacred Tables of the Law". Here the claim of notability is so thin, even under WP:AUTHOR, that IMHO (and in several others opinions, too) does not justify an article. Cavarrone 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books in which he has participated are in essentially zero libraries, according to worldcat. The most I can find for any of them are 4, for Dennis the Wild Bull. The coauthorship issue is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable author, and no reliable sources discuss Warburton, himself, in any depth. I'm very concerned that keeping this would set a precedent by which one can attempt to claim notability through association with a celebrity, an argument that is traditionally rejected (see WP:NOTINHERITED. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at José Miguel Agrelot Coliseum[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, the more notable events should be listed at the parent article (José Miguel Agrelot Coliseum). The "upcoming events" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION!: If it wasn't for these articles on Wikipedia, the Puerto Rican people, MY PEOPLE, would've never known what events are being held at the "Choliseo"! I am 100% AGAINST the deletion of these pages!

-- BsaPR1996 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fixing this to where it won't break off into a new subsection, as that will interfere with the AfD as a whole. Now the one thing I will say is that Wikipedia is not a place to notify people of events. We're not a calendar of events for things held at any location. You have to show that these events are particularly noteworthy as far as the Coliseum goes. By this I mean that the events would have received a pretty substantial amount of coverage in the news, as you'd have to show that these events were noteworthy enough to warrant an article themselves. We almost never keep just indiscriminate lists of every person that has ever performed at a location. When we do, it's along the lines of highly notable events that merit an article. If they can't pass notability guidelines for their own article, then odds are that they don't need to be on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently the events are so non-notable that wp:PROMOTION is needed for the intended audience to find out about them. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMOTION and no real notability either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedents such as Events at Madison Square Garden and every single article categorized under Category:Lists of events by place. Nominator has gone on a deletion spree and nominated several of these articles for deletion when the fact that several of them exist on Wikipedia shows that our readers and contributors desire them.

This is also one of the most encyclopedic articles that I have ever seen as it lists every single event hosted at the venue which is akin to a recordkeeping similar to the Library of Alexandria.

This is NOT WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is actually extremely encyclopedic and factual.

In addition, this article is quite in tune which two guidelines: namely WP:SPLITLIST and WP:STANDALONE as the list would be so long that it merits an article by itself.

Also, per WP:EDIT, a policy:

Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is.

The only policy this could violate is WP:NOTDIR but then you look at it and it says (in relation to lists):

[There] is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.

These entries "are famous" because they "significantly contribute to the list topic". I wish we could have an article like this for every single notable venue on the planet; past, present, and future.

We then have WP:SALAT which states that:

The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections.

This list is extremely valuable as it is an encyclopedic record of every single event held at the venue. It is also neither general nor broad as it is divided by year: events in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and so on.

Furthermore, per WP:FIVEPILLARS Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is "a reference work [...] to which one can refer for confirmed facts". Every single event listed here is a fact. Look at it from this point of view: would it be ENCYCLOPEDIC to have a list of every single event hosted at the Ancient Agora of Athens? It would most definitely be. Historians would go crazy over something so valuable as that. Why should we limit ourselves when Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and is therefore not limited in what it can host? Deletion of this article would set a precedent and have dire consequences for the project.

In conclusion, we must keep this list not only for the sake of Puerto Rican history, but for the sake of the project as a whole.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: 'Upcoming events' and 'Events pending' must be removed per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Everything else that is a fact must be kept. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of WP:CRYSTAL is that then? I read "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." in line 1. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that too. I'd say that any upcoming events that lack a reliable source should probably be removed? For example: Red Hot Chili Peppers is referenced, but the Katty Perry tour is not. How about that? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Including each and every event is clearly violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Earls Court Exhibition Centre. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events at Earls Court Exhibition Centre[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this place, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Earls Court Exhibition Centre).-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree the list within the Music events section is non-encyclopedic. However, the article is not just a list, it contains information that should be in the main Earls Court Exhibition Centre article. For example, the events article has a good section about the pool area, not mentioned in the main article. In conclusion, do not delete before the non-event stuff is merged. Periglio (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Earls Court Exhibition Centre - the main article isn't big enough to require a spinout article at this point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the sources located by Trevj midway through the discussion, and the acknowledgement by the nominator that this addresses most of their concerns, no consensus to delete. If the article isn't improved within a reasonable period with these sources and still fails to assert notability, it can be renominated. Daniel (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media Go[edit]

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

All sources are trivial (noting the release) or primary. I've not been able to find any reviews or non-trivial third party sources. It may be because the name is hard to search for ("media go" pulls up a lot of irrelevant things and including words like "sony" helps but nothing looks reliable and relevant). Hobit (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG.--Rollins83 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contain useful information .--mowsala 14 December 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You found things I could not for whatever reason. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination, though as it stands it's spamy as all heck. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could certainly do with a good clean-up! The generic name doesn't help searching, but I'd have been extremely surprised if a product that's been around for a few years, produced by such a multinational, didn't have any sources. I think I typed something like '"media go" sony' but the recent removal of the GNews link from ((find sources)) may have done more harm than good... that's something I intend to investigate separately. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Ballantyne[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Suspected self promotional as created by a single purpose editor LibStar (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No evidence of any claim to notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Vera Sipos[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. I find nothing that makes her notable. Nothing in NZ Herald, and only 1 gbooks hit. I searched under her assumed name as well. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is a general consensus in WP:WPNZ that DNZB people are notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep a number of sources tin the DNZB article; a significant award; most of her work would have been done in non-English speaking countries prior to the all-digital age, so news sources hard to come by. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't ague with the New Zealand National Dictionary of Biography. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone with an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography clearly meets WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep DNZB is more than enough. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, taking into consideration edits by Johnbod after this article was nominated. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Byrd[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability (people) standard. Also, the only reference is an "Artist's profile," which only contains a short, three-paragraph blurb about the artist's life, and a list of the 6 exhibitions the artist participated in. Josh3580_talk/hist 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a collections section, using this. There is also this from 1988 and a bit more on google. Meets WP:ARTIST 4 d) "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", just. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has held significant exhibitions. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST #4 (in collection of multiple notable museums — see the two bluelinked museums in the article). The newspaper obit and review of his retrospective would also seem to be enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishlangu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 14:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no significant references Neonchameleon (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ref provided are commercial sales links/PR and do not establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digital pet#Web-based digital pets. Anyone is free to merge the content from behind the redirect at their leisure. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual pet site[edit]

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

WP:NEO. Most of the sources are primary sources; i.e., the sites themselves. All other sources only cover the individual sites and do not promote the actual term "virtual pet site". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, and this is not an article about a neologism; it's an article about online virtual pets, which obviously exist and have press coverage (particularly Neopets but also FooPets).[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Having a title that's less than ideal isn't reason for deletion. The only question is whether this needs to be separate from the main article digital pet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Digital pet#Web-based digital pets. The concept of a "website offering online virtual pets" is undoubtedly notable, but there I'm not sure there is a need for a separate article about this specific concept when it could be covered broadly in our existing article about digital pets; although I would also agree with a keep & improve result. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Digital pet#Web-based digital pets. There are enough of these sites with enough coverage that the concept deserves a mention somewhere on the project, the question is whether it should have its own page. If there's enough left after the promotional stuff is removed to support an article, I say keep. Otherwise, take out the promotion and merge what's left with Digital pet. Novusuna ^talk 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Catholic Church (Holy Cross, Iowa)[edit]

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

No indication that this church in a small town satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Article virtually makes non-notabilty explicit: not enough people attend the church for it to have it's own priest.TheLongTone (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim for being a notable church. Unreferenced for 8 years. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unreferenced and it needs references to prove that this particular church is notable. Fails per WP:CHURCH. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce L. Mims[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator. An article about a non-notable school principal without any coverage in reliable third party sources. The references in the article are mostly primary sources and none of them show that this person meets either WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Valenciano (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Jadeslair~~ I am pretty sure he does not meet WP:AUTHOR, I will explore the others. I did not know about WP:ACADEMIC, he may meet that criteria. I will look for any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is currently under vote for deletion but I would like to get it to rank for "This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale." Does anyone have tips on creating a quality article? For this or any article? I would just like to create a quality article.David chamberlain (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guidance given on his talk page. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles about school teachers, no matter how admirable and worthy as this subject is, are not kept unless there are exceptional circumstances which don't seem to appear here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Local web sites and an alumni magazine profile don't add up to notability for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cencoft OS[edit]

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

Non-notable computer operating system, apparently just another Linux clone, possibly a one-person project, no sign of any independent coverage anywhere, no concrete factual information about the system other than that it seems to be a thinly adapted and re-branded derivative of SuSe. Only indication of existence out there is the project's own website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. I was unable to find any independent coverage myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Ref provided are blog posts and a user-editable site and do not establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated and consensus supports the fact that these changes address the initial concerns. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maura O'Halloran[edit]

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

Doubtful notability - a woman who became a (Buddhist) nun (nothing special there) and died in a traffic accident (nothing special there). Her letters home were published (one-time (posthumous) author) but this is apparently a "classic" already. Emeraude (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having some trouble with sources. I found a PW article that asserts that she won an Audie Award, but I can't find any real mention of it anywhere else. I do see where she's mentioned in some texts and I found some reviews for her book of letters, but so far it's slow going. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a nice lengthy mention in a NYU book, so I fleshed the article out with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a keep, as I found her mentioned in this textbook-type book and in this book by Nuala O'Faolain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found enough mentions of her that I feel that this would merit a keep even without looking at the somewhat unverifiable Audie Award. The O'Faolain mention looks to have been a full review/article about O'Halloran that was republished in book format. I also found a good lengthy mention of her in a NYU Press book, as well as a few mentions in other places we'd consider a RS. I see her referenced in quite a few texts as well. She's not as widely known as some of the other people out there, but there's enough to show that she has had an impact. So far I've been able to source everything in the article other than the film mention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the film mention- I can't find it anywhere. I did find more mentions to show that her work is being used in college courses such as this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TG79 has done an admirable job renovating the article. -- GreenC 08:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Ziggy Inc.[edit]

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

no visible notability . Previously accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. The company does not seem notable. The app does – I found quite a few reviews of it on Google. I suggest that this article be rewritten to be about the app. Really, it's already about the app, but the title doesn't match. If people would rather delete it than rewrite it, that's OK with me, but someone would probably just create an article on the app anyway. The sources make it out to be pretty popular. We might as well use this existing article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per User:NinjaRobotPirate. Funny, I first typed "NinjaRobertPirate".... :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes GNG with [31] [32] [33] in addition to what's already in the article. I would rename it to just Ask Ziggy because the product and company have the same name basically. I don't see the point in removing the info about start-up funding etc. because it is sourced adequately. If it (or Windows Phone) turns out to be a complete flop, and the article becomes a permastub, it can always be upmerged to Windows Phone later. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus supports deleting the article. Also salting the article to protect re-creation per multiple requests here. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aghdaban massacre[edit]

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

Is this some kind of a joke? This article (if you call it that) is based on clearly propagandist Azeri websites. There are two external links to historyoftruth.com "Armenian Allegations" (pretty self-explanatory). The first link entitled "20 Years Pass Since Armenians Committed Genocide [!] In Aghdaban" claims that "Armenians burnt 130-house Aghdaban village, tortured people, 33 people were killed, 8 old people aged 90-100, 2 children, 7 women were burnt alive, 2 went missing, 12 were seriously injured. Armenians burnt the manuscripts Aghdabanli Gurban and Ashug Shamshir." Երևանցի ^talk 09:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources provided are POV, cannot find RS, not even to confirm the event occurred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ağdaban, not notable outside that locality.--Auric talk 14:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and tag refimprove. The particular 'propagandist' websites can be hashed out on the RSN. There is a book out there – My brother's road OCLC 56805609 which may qualify to substantiate the event. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the concerns I have raised at ANI, the massacre, tragedy, or genocide (whatever you want to call it) cannot be found in any independent RS. When searching for Aghdaban massacre, Aghdaban tragedy, or Aghdaban genocide, nothing seems to show up. My Brothers Road merely states that Armenians "attacked the militarized village of Aghdaban" which sounds nothing like how the article presents the event, let alone some sort of massacre of the innocents. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reliably sourced content to merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the users who support "merge": merge what? Can you please take a few seconds and look at those sources? They are some blog-like Azeri amateur sites. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see nothing "blog-like" about any of the links. --Auric talk 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.historyoftruth.com/ Its title is "Armenian Allegations". What do you call that? Or what's http://karabakh.org/? I don't see how they can ever be considered reliable. If there was a massacre as claimed by these sites, I'm sure there would be at least a few mentions in books on the Nagorno-Karabakh War. One of the best works on the topic is Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War and it doesn't say anything about Aghdaban. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable, yes; blog-like, no. I do agree that it's not really notable on its own. It was a war. Things happen. The conquering of a village is only notable in the history of that village.--Auric talk 23:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm. Yeah, it is a blog-like site. See here. It located in WordPress ("a free and open source blogging tool"). You missed the point or maybe I wasn't clear enough. There is no question of notability here. I doubt the occurrence of this massacre, because the only sources that talk about it are clearly biased Azeri sites. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at this which mentions nothing about wordpress. I direct you to "Svante E. Cornell (1999), "The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict" (PDF), Report No 46, Department of East European Studies, Uppsala University" No massacre is claimed, merely an eviction. So something happened, just not a massacre.--Auric talk 00:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell says "Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered an their population evicted [i.e. expelled], leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded." As you said, there's nothing about massacres. Therefore, I don't see any reason to have an article entitled "Aghdaban massacre" and especially "Aghdaban genocide" simply based on Azeri propagandist sites. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - major WP:V issues, so nothing to merge, and it's completely non-notable - if it even occurred. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – what the heck happened to sources and neutral point of view? Epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - alleged incident appears to lack "significant" coverage in WP:RS so even if it happened it is probably non-notable per WP:GNG. Nothing stopping article being recreated if RS come to light in the future but in its current state this needs to be binned ASAP as it cannot be verified per WP:V and seems to be POV. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no reliable sources, no notability, blatantly POV. As per multiple views above. DES ^(talk) 15:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. In fact, it would be entirely proper for someone to IAR and delete it right now. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete and SALT. No Reliable sources. Fails WP:V....William 16:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and tag refimprove. The UN does have letters regarding this and other violence (probably falling under war crimes rather than Military-related) in the region, noting Aghdaban as one of the targeted villages. Arbitrary deletion using terminology such as, "not notable outside that locality" or, "I doubt the occurrence of this massacre" is... well, unsavoury to say the least. Perhaps it's a hoax, but I'd be reticent to dismiss it entirely because it has failed to gain a plethora of Western media attention. EDIT Change to Delete: If any WP:V and WP:RS does emerge, an appropriately named article can be written at a later date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not denigrate your fellow editors by calling their currently well-founded opinions "unsavoury". If you have evidence that this event happened, then please present it; I see nothing at the link you provided (which is to the website of the Azerbaijani Mission to the U.N., and so is, again, potentially a POV source - if there was actually anything at the link to read). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to send us to the "Armenian aggression" section of the page (there's a neutral title for you). What I can find there about Aghdaban is this:
43. In May 1992, Shusha, the Azerbaijani-populated administrative centre of the district within Nagorny Karabakh, and Lachyn, the district situated between Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh, were occupied. In 1993, the armed forces of Armenia captured another six districts of Azerbaijan around Nagorny Karabakh: Kalbajar (April 1993), Aghdam (July 1993), Jabrayil (August 1993), Gubadly (August 1993), Fuzuli (August 1993) and Zangilan (October 1993).
Note that even this biased sourced doesn't refer to an "Aghdaban genocide" or "massacre", even though only a few sections above it had no problem with referring to a "Khojaly genocide" in February 1992. Also note that the date given for the Armenian military take-over of Aghdaban is "July 1993", not the April 1992 or May 1993 given in the Wiki-article under examination here.
The"Armenian aggression" statement is a potpourri of claims and charges, none of which can be taken at face value, because it's an attempt by one party to hostilities to make a case against the other party. There's little doubt that something happened, maybe some of these claims are bona fide, but there's no way to tell without the information coming from a neutral source. The website of the Azerbaijani Mission to the U.N. doesn't qualify as that, and therefore cannot be accepted as a reliable source. It's not our job to sort out the truth from claims and counter-claims, it;s our job to present neutral facts from trusted sources, of which he have none for this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you were writing all of that, I was finding this:- Please read this PDF from the site. The fact that it reads, "In the first years of the conflict, the tragedy and terrorism committed by Armenians against the Azerbaijani population of Karabakh in the villages of Kerkijahan(and here), Mesheli, Koushjular, Karadaghly and Aghdaban, and finally the Khodjaly genocide..." would lead me to suspect that, although the information in the article/item in question is not encyclopaedic and overtly POV, there is very probably substance in the claim. I've managed to find this connection in under a half an hour just through a quick google search. I find it surprising that no one else seems to have found anything outside of the obvious and unsubstantiated cris de coeur entries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also missed my suggestion regarding what to do with the current article: merge and tag for refimprove (that is, merge into Aghdaban). I'd say that, in terms of naming conventions, you couldn't get much more neutral. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We appreciate your efforts, but at least read the PDF you found. It's a letter. Since when is a letter a reliable source? I think you've been here long enough to know that. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy - Since there is no reliable source to verify that the event occurred (as required by WP:V), there is nothing to be merged. We don't usually keep stuff around in the hope that someday someone may come up with a source to back it up. Instead, we delete it, and then if a reliable source is later found, an article can be written around what that source says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, to support what Yerevantsi said, a letter from the "Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan" to the General Secretary of the U.N. can be considered a reliable source only as to the opinions of the government of Azerbaijan. That's not a neutral source for establishing facts. You'll have to do better than that, since we're looking for a citation from an unbiased reliable source. (If there was a U.N. report on the matter, the result of an investigation by U.N. officials, for instance, or written by a third party and officially accepted by the U.N., that might qualify. But not letters from Azerbaijani or Armenian officials, or their close allies.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly complain that this is a subject area that hasn't been dealt with well by the Western media, and you'd have a valid point, I think, but the fact of the matter is we need someone of that sort to verify this claim, and nothing has turned up, at least that I can find, and I believe others have also tried and come up empty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@րևանցի and @Beyond My Ken. Yes, my apologies to all. I've been working on too many politically sensitive articles and am getting uncivil and bitey. While I suspect that there could be some substance to the allegations, it isn't our job to create the news, nor am I particularly interested in playing at investigative journalism. I get a little anxious about the number of articles that need to be cleared vs. being expedient for the sake of clearing articles. I'll change my comment to 'delete' and have an aspirin and a little lie down. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the sources do not show notability for this alternative currency. At least one of the keep votes even acknowledges this, while asserting the article should be kept anyway, however given the lack of reliable sources it seems unlike a verifiable article could be written about this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novacoin[edit]

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

The article has been missing decent sources that demonstrate notability for several months now. I was only able to find a few passing mentions (in reliable sources), typically in a list with several other cryptocurrencies. Smite-Meister (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This [34] Guardian piece is the best source I could find, and it has three sentences about Novacoin. Would not call that significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smite-Meister (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few services links to article discussion page. It seems that something like services section should be created. 109.188.124.90 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks. But I'm unsure is it allowed to add such information or not? TheJediMaster777 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the majority of sources being nothing but technical documentation by the author. Novacoin only has a passing mention in The Guardian. [citation needed] 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searching turned up some trivial mentions, but nothing significant enough to indicate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely doesn't pass GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The article sources have changed. Now we have Arstechnica, rbcdaily, coinmarketcap... What here isn't notable guys? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coinmarketcap certainly isn't. Rbcdaily has a passing mention, which I'm sure you know isn't enough. The Arstechnica article does not even mention Novacoin by name. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smite-Meister: OK, what about Forbes? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even a passing mention of this thing in that article - just a listing of its value at the time the article was written. There is no discussion, no context, no independent coverage. Surely you aren't arguing that that one listing is sufficient to justify articles on all 30 cryptocurrencies in the article, are you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to provide a reliable website, which says this currency exist, so it becmoes notable. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here doubts the existence of Novacoin. The problem is that notability requires much more than that. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage from reliable sources. Most of the article seems to be based on forum posts and technical documentation. We need independent analysis, not fans chatting on bitcointalk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; no reliable sources. I hate to not assume good faith, but all of these cryptocurrency articles with no reliable sources and bunches of editors arguing against deletion because "it is notable/it has a high market cap/it's new and different" makes me wonder whether people are promoting them in order to raise adoption rates (and hence, value) of these cryptocurrencies. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The major digital crypto currencies, of which this is one, deserve and should have a wikipedia article each. We are doing the readership, contributing edtiors and the wikipedia project a great disservice with the pedantically absurd requirements of notability. People are just hearing about these currencies, and the best place for realiable, encyclopedic knowledge is right here. Intersofia (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't write a reliable, encyclopedic article without reliable sources describing the subject. No such sources have been provided. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - C'mon, guys, it's the second known *working* implementation of proof-of-stake, with own approach. Actually, the most part of new PoS/PoW hybrids (e.g. Yacoin) are forked from Novacoin repository. Maybe there is a lot of work to do, but there is no real reason to delete this article.TheJediMaster777 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: relisting, very close to the standard consensus threshold, let us discuss more.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second working implementation of proof-of-stake? If you can demonstrate this using reliable sources it may merit Novacoin a short mention in the proof-of-stake article (which it already has), definitely not an article of its own. Then again, the whole concept of proof-of-stake seems to be limited to cryptocurrencies so that whole article should probably be merged with cryptocurrency. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've read the discussion above and the sources found, but they have insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar problems to other pages in this category. Sourcing is drawn heavily from web forums, wikis, and raw-data webpages. Some trivial mentions in the news, but it doesn't look like GNG is being met by the page in its current state.Breadblade (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden section transform[edit]

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

A contested prod. Apparently, the person who contested the prod and who wrote the original article is Jun Li himself. The prod rationale was: An unencyclopedically-written article on a subject that seems to appear only in a single primary source. I can find no citations to Li's work in Google scholar (indeed, I can't even find Li's paper there), and I can find nothing in Google scholar that uses the phrase "Golden section transform". So this appears to be original research and to fail WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Appears to be utterly non-notable and possibly OR as well as pure maths. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge In fact, whether "Golden section transform" personally I named will be notable or not depends on herself, not me or any other people on planet earth. I spent my precious time doing the research and just named it normally, I got the idea when I was 20 years old in college, then I published it in 2007 mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golden_section_transform, that's it. I don't mind Wikipedia deleting it or merging it into Discrete cosine transform or Discrete Fourier transform, I just want to say that it has the potential to be an independent article for some different content which I haven't published yet, so I decided to organize the content to be a single article at this point. Every Wikipedia reader has the right to know the knowledge if they couldn't get it from the other people. Also, if some readers who are in the signal processing field could get benefits from it, it will make a whole lot of sense. Jasonli1880 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading Mr. Li's statements here and on the talk page I have to agree that this concept, however important Mr Li may feel it to be, has not generated notice in either the academic, commercial, of industrial fields. It has no sources other than Mr. Li's own research. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality-driven architecture design[edit]

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

This seems to be a single person's research project DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, not quite "a single person's research project", but it appears a small research project of an (academic) computer lab, directed roughly by one person. I can be convinced to change my opinion if the project has received a substantial number of citations in independent publications, etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For deletion, that is. Consensus is that this should be merged somewhere, but we can't seem to find a good merge target at the moment. Sandstein 10:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lalaith[edit]

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

Non-notable character. Should be deleted or merged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Children of Húrin. While some parallels to the Kalevala have been observed in Lalaith, the character is not notable enough for a standalone article. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging would be a good option if it didn't make the main article too long. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is based in policy how? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe WP:TOOLONG. I suspect the ultimate goal is to delete/merge a lot of the individual character articles. If they are merged into The Children of Húrin, that article would become far too long by any reasonable definition. Just trying to look at the big picture. If that is not considered being policy based, then I guess I'd have to go with Merge. Unfortunately, given the fate of such list articles under this process, I could not support merging the more minor characters into a separate List of XXXX article even though that is probably the best option. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article is somewhat slim, but not amenable to expansion. The solution is such cases is sometimes to have a single article or characters or minor characters, with a paragraph on each. If there were such an article, this one might be merged there. On the other hand, this article is rather more than just a description of the character. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Gordon Creative Labs[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing firm with five employees with an article that relies primarily on cites from the company website or routine reposting of press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 05:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm concerned that this article existed for months, but the nominator brought this to AfD on the same day that I mentioned the article to Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation. We shouldn't condone the chilling effect of "punishing" articles that are used for purposes of discussion of Wikipedia's problems. I know this is not an acceptable "Keep" criterion, so I will also say that the nominator has falsely described the sources referenced by the article. This news article is not a "routine reposting of press releases". Several citations point to Graphic Design USA, which describes itself as "the news magazine for graphic designers and other creative professionals". It does not appear to be driven by press releases. Assuredly, there are "borderline" qualities about J.D. Gordon Creative Labs, but they are no different than tens of thousands of other articles about small businesses that exist on Wikipedia. We certainly shouldn't begin a purge with the one article that was presented almost at random to the WMF director only hours ago, especially on false pretenses of poor sourcing. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INTC summarizes the article fairly in his comments to Sue Gardner: "The content appears to be factual, if self-serving. There are numerous references sourced, pathetic as they may be, but at least they verify that this company exists and does produce award-winning output." (except for the "award-winning" part - this is an industry that gives out a multitude of awards, they would be more notable if they hadn't received any awards). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it does not meet the criteria for notability. I dont think that because of the way this page came to light is should be kept. I looked at the siouxcityjournal article, but I dont think this makes them a notable company. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I looked at each of the sources, and the nominator's claim that the article is only sourced to press releases is incorrect. The topic has received a lot of coverage in the Sioux City Journal, and appears to be notable. Westin D^odger 17:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the Sioux Journal sources mentioned in this discussion are not being fairly represented. This one lists J.D. Gordon itself as the source of the article and this one just mentions Gordon in the caption of the image as image-credit. It does not support the text of the article. This is a routine re-written press release regarding a promotions announcement. The awards are all from primary sources from the organization granting the award, rather than profile stories or secondary sources that explain their significance. Such a Wikipedia article is misleading to readers, because it imparts the sense that these awards have been determined to be significant by independent editors, when they rarely are. Waggener Edstrom (see here) is a good example of awards done properly, by including those mentioned in profile stories from secondary sources independent of the award itself. user:Smallbones is correct that we have to be especially careful in the marketing/advertising field, where awards are abundant and often paid for. Anyways, in regards to the AfD discussion itself, the guidelines are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORP. I don't see any proper sources that cover the org in depth. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and consider blocking the authors - as INTC says the sourcing is "pathetic", the main "external source", the Sioux City paper, briefly notes in about 4 short articles that the company promoted a couple of people, moved into a new office, produced a poster for a non-profit, and (the most interesting one) takes photographs of food, but not as well as the folks in Minneapolis do. In a new low for sourcing, the Podunk College alumni news had a line or two about an employee. In short - no RS, no WP:V. The article is also "self serving " quoting INTC again, or IMHO the article is an advertisement for the firm. It doesn't actually say much beyond something like "The company is open for business" and when that's all there is, it's an ad. It violates the policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. Since this is a policy, the authors could be blocked, and we should consider that - if we thought that they'd come back and do it again perhaps in some other articles. My feeling is that they are only interested in advertising this company, so that there is no need to block them at present. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... ads usually say things like "buy now" and "see why our clients love us" - the NPOV problems are noticeable, but mild. And blocks are not intended for any editor that violates a policy, but for those that can't seem to control themselves, are acting in obvious bad-faith, or show no prospects of being a useful participant. In this case it would be better to simply explain the COI policy and ask them to use AfC in the future, if at all. The author may only be interested in this page at the moment, but staff move around quickly. Rather than act with hostility, we can gently persuade editors to understand that their goals cannot be served here. I'm too lazy to dig it up, but user:OrangeMike asked me a while back to help him deal with an editor "shilling for a client" and I felt it turned out to be a great example of doing this. CorporateM (Talk) 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better. Ads don't need to have anything like "buy now" in them. The simplest kind just state that they have a product or service available for sale - and that's done here. And then there are things like "corporate image advertising". But even that doesn't matter: marketing, promotion, and advertising are all prohibited by the policy WP:NOT. If you don't want to call this advertising, then surely you must call it promotion or marketing.

As far as blocking the authors - I don't say that's the best way to handle this - only that by breaking policy the authors have put themselves in jeopardy of being blocked, i.e. "consider blocking."Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I would call it promotional and an NPOV problem, just wouldn't go as far as calling it an advertisement. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, if you say that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about entities that have little more coverage than to say they are "open for business", could you please explain why Wikipedia has an advertisement called List of Wikimedia chapters, or an advertisement called Kat Walsh, or an advertisement called Ecology Summit (which was clearly written for or by one of Jimmy Wales' "drinking buddies", Richard Stromback). Get your and others' hypocrisy in check, and then we can work on an objective solution to COI editing problems. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. in particular

"Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. – Blay Tant Marqueter"

As far as you calling me a hypocrite, all I see is name-calling on your part and rather blatant marketing by you for allowing blatant marketing on Wikipedia - something we've never allowed. There's no reason to take any of your claims seriously. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Wikipedian response there. When presented with embarrassing evidence that Wikipedia's insiders are incapable of applying WP:NOTE in an objective, even-handed manner... simply dismiss the claims as "no reason to take them seriously". Well done. You fit the mold. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedians aren't capable of applying wp:GNG in an objective, even handed manner. In order to do so would mean each Wikipedian looking at all 4.4 million articles, and then investigating all the sources on all of them. This is obviously humanly impossible. Asking for superhuman endeavours from Wikipedians is going to get you nowhere. What Wikipedians can do is browse, try to spot anything too egregious, and then discuss whether that should be deleted. This is not a reliable process any more than turning 10,000 gardeners loose on a rainforest would be. But if there's worse out there there's nothing stopping you from nominating it yourself. wp:GNG is generally applied fairly objectively and evenhandedly when an article reaches AfD (and if not they fail; the problems you cite are because articles haven't been nominated. Not because they aren't given a fair shake when they get here. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the Ecology Summit page, which was mostly soapboxing, promotion and original research. At a very brief glance, the list page looks potentially acceptable, but the Kat Walsh page is only sourced to press releases. Maybe someone else will be bold enough to clean it up or nominate it. I believe Richard Stromback meets our very low notability requirements for professional sports players, but most of that article could be deleted. CorporateM (Talk)

The discussion about this article brings up many valid points as well as many not so valid points. First, having experience in the industry to which J.D. Gordon Creative Labs belongs, I would like to clarify a couple of things. Addy awards are not paid for. They are given by nomination and vote of your peers in your industry and members of the Advertising Federation. These awards should not be discounted as insignificant. Also, the citations from Graphic Design USA and How Magazine should also not be discounted, both of these are widely read throughout the industry, and objective. The number ofawards given to this firm is noteworthy and in many cases exceeds the count given to more widely-known firms. Additionally, a simple internet search shows additional sources of information about this firm that is not cited in the article. The size of the firm, as commented earlier, is not relevant to its alleged lack of notoriety as there are many smaller companies of equal or greater note. There are problems with the citations in the article as far as diversity of sources, and it appears that more are available. I also agree that the tone of the article does have the tone of advertisement, however, it is difficult to not paint an unintentional positive light on a firm of any size or notoriety without some form of equally bad press about the subject. Deletion of this article could lead to a precedent by which a large percentage of articles, particularly in the field of advertising, should be deleted. Perhaps the discussion on this article should be more about improving and refining objectivity, and less about removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incense40 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant puffery. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This, and a considerable number of other such articles should also be deleted, and I've been nominating them when I see them--we need to be considerably more careful before initially accepting them. Minuscule business. No evidence that the awards are major. I don;t see this as promotional in content, but an editor without COI would not normally write on such an extremely borderline subject. Thats one of the problems of COI, as much as what they put into the article. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails wp:NCORP. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Allotransplantation#Other transplant options. Or elsewhere, but what discussion there is agrees that this shouldn't be a standalone article. Sandstein 09:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homostatic graft[edit]

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

Looks like a simple, uncommon definition to me, with little chance of expansion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A5. The article has already been transwikied to wiktionary. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Scholar search proves that the term is valid - but aside from the definition there doesn't seem to be anything more to say. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What more could be added to the page? Reads more like a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. Meatsgains (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Allotransplantation It seems a commonly enough used term and there is an obvious target. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Allotransplantation#Other transplant options. The term exists in reliable sources and seems a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, preservation of verifiable content, in this case just the definition, is preferable to deletion. Allotransplantation is the best target I found as well. --Mark viking (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stardust Crusaders. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Avdol[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stardust Crusaders. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stardust Crusaders. The character section on the article is very brief and should give more details about each character and their roles in the plot. Details from the article would help flesh things out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable about this fictional character and I don't see any single reference on this particular article at all.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unless someone plans to delete Stardust Crusaders or remove thy character section the article should redirect there since the character in question is covered. I see no reason to need to delete the entire article first.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters#Seto Kaiba. I must give less weight to the "keep" opinions which only oppose merging because that would make the target article too large. This does not address the notability-based deletion argument, and ignores the possibility of merging only part of the content. Under these circumstances, consensus based on discussion as informed by relevant policies and guidelines supports a redirect, allowing a merger from the history at editors' discretion. Sandstein 10:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seto Kaiba[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Yu-Gi-Oh! through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to character list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging into character list would make that article too large. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it should be kept or not but at worst this should be redirected since he was a major character in the work in question so it would make little sense for someone typing this not to get the info that they are looking for.--174.93.163.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Character has detailed entries in www.urbandictionary.com, absoluteanime.com and comicvine.com. Checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources where none is listed as a bad source, of course that doesn't mean they are good sources. The point is that there are a lot of third party non-circular sources. In addition, the article is mostly written in real world perspective although the writer(s) occasionally slip into in-universe wording. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see this article being merged further down the line, a redirect would butcher the few sources this article has while merging it would make the character article too large. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Yu-Gi-Oh!_characters#Seto_Kaiba. No independent sources that I can find that discuss this character or its impact. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As insufficiently notable and promotional. Sandstein 10:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFerry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AFerry

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material from WP:SPA GoldenClockCar (talk · contribs), who seems to have a WP:COI. He's tried his hardest, over several months, but the company itself is not notable, the only coverage of are a few mentions in passing, and it fails WP:NCORP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator and principal author of this article, User:GoldenClockCar, has stated on his user page, subsequent to commencement of this AfD, that he is an employee of this company. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But before you wrote this comment at the top here I declared a COI in my talk page. And before you wrote this comment here at the top I had also explained my relationship to the company in in the thread below. Perhaps you could actually read it. I have been completely open about this from the start and I do not appreciate your attempts to suggest that I have not been. My aim is to write a neutral article. I have included for example competitors and criticism sections to help achieve this. Perhaps the article could be better but my COI is not a reason for deletion. On your User page you make it very clear that you think this should be the case. However it is not.

The opening statement says you "seem" to have a COI. That needed to be rectified in a more visible way, without persons having to wade through the verbiage on this page or investigating further. The fact is you are an SPA, you are here to write an article about your company. The fact that you are not tasked with that issue is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my COI was declared from the first on my Talk page. I'm not talking about the "seems" part at the top. I don't disagree it should be clear. I object to this however "has stated on his user page, subsequent to commencement of this AfD" - this very much implies that it wasn't clear before. It was. It was on my Talk Page. I have never hidden it. You think that all COIs should not write articles. I disagree. So does Wikipedia. You think COIs shouldn't defend themselves in this forum. I disagree. So does Wikipedia. Generally, I think this is getting a bit silly now. You obviously don't want to help me in any way shape or form. We disagree with each other. Can we leave at that? Thanks. GoldenClockCar (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So does Wikipedia"? You may want to actually read WP:COI, especially the part that says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends." You also should read WP:OWN. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it isn't forbidden. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also read:

"Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors."

I have done this and always been 100% transparent. Why not judge the product rather than producer? Or, if you feel the article lacks neutrality, suggest ways to improve it. I'm open to all help I can get. However, you don't do this but seem to be stuck in a rut with COI. I have not seen it given as a reason for deletion. You think it should be. It isn't. I repeat myself ad-nauseum it seems.GoldenClockCar (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not prohibited, but it is discouraged, COI editors are asked not to edit articles about themselves and their companies and you've blithely ignored that and, yes, obviously are going to continue to do so. Yes, it is pointless to continue to reason with you when obviously you are impervious to reason. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for everything. I think we clearly disagree and probably both are getting hot under the collar when all together there are more important things in this life. Have a good weekend. I mean that. :) - don't know if smileys are acceptable on Wikipedia AfD discussions! Thanks again. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're very welcome and I appreciate your understanding. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. I strongly believe that the company is notable. Not only is there in depth coverage - for example - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1333267/Website-week-www-aferry-uk.html but the multiple entries (E.g. guide books) while not in depth are from multiple independent sources which according to the guidelines on notability can compensate for a lack of in depth coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH. Also while there is a Conflict of Interests (I have declared this with the connected contributor tag) I believe I have achieved neutrality in the article. Thanks. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly disguised advertising for non-notable website, written by the company and aggressively promoted in Wikipedia by an employee. A fine example of why COI editors should not be permitted to create articles, either directly or through the Articles for Creation service. What distinguishes this company from the other services that don't have Wiki articles other than the fact that it has somebody vigorously trying to put an article about this company into Wikipedia? There is only one article actually about this company, and the rest are incidental mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because there are other similar companies without wiki articles that perhaps should have them is no reason to delete. There will always be numerous individuals, companies etc. who don't have Wiki articles. Because there is no article about x, means that there should be no article about y? Sorry, this argument is illogical and more importantly not supported by Wikipedia. What's more your objections seem based on your own personal opinions of the workings of Wikipedia (COIs not being allowed to have entries etc.) rather than any valid arguments. You make these opinions very clear on your user page. You are using your objection here as a soap-box for your opinions and not actually carrying out your duty to give an informed decision based on the established criteria for deletion.

AFerry is mentioned, once or multiple times, in almost every single UK national newspaper website - in fact you'd be hard pressed to not find a mention. Furthermore it is mentioned in books by almost every single English language guide book brand. It is a very notable company and my COI has not hindered in making this article neutral. Furthermore, as you admit there is in-depth coverage. And as stated previously, what is more the non in-depth coverage can also support notability as shown in WP:CORPDEPTH "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." A small reference e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/10091887/How-to-see-the-Mediterranean-by-ferry.html (in this case a small paragraph) does not necessarily make it incidental.

This article was also created via articles for creation as you allude to and this should be taken into consideration. It should also be pointed out that Barney the barney barney was involved early on in removing the article even when being created so may have a personal point to prove. Thanks for your consideration. GoldenClockCar (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that Barney the barney barney and my volunteer colleagues, would much rather be doing something useful and don't really want to be wasting our time having to deal with people intent not on writing about interesting stuff, but making money. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you don't know my motivations and I don't know yours. I do fully appreciate all those people that try to help. It is human nature, however, to not appreciate those that try to delete and remove at every turn. The company isn't my company and neither do I have a high level position and neither was I tasked with doing this. I am not being paid to do this - it is a Sunday afternoon - not many people would get paid to work on a Sunday! I simply honestly believe the company I work for is notable enough for inclusion. After rejection after rejection, however, it becomes very frustrating - not necessarily your fault. However, you can't trust my motivations - or indeed know them, and neither can I trust or know yours. Forgive me if it is the case that your immediate request for deletion was not based on your previously held convictions which you arrived at having looked at the article in progress. E.g. You state that the references are not in depth. That was the case, but no longer. My first impression based on the speed of your response was that you didn't read it fully. Again, forgive me if I am wrong. I should also mention that I am more than happy to make edits to improve my article. However, as I stated previously I firmly believe it is notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps not in the current form - despite being moderated and deemed notable enough for inclusion via articles for creation. And as you mention I've spent quite a few months on this. I'm sure you can understand my apparent frustration. I can certainly understand and appreciate that you guys aren't paid. Well. I'm not being paid to work now on a Sunday and I'm not being paid to write a Wikipedia article - but I do 'have to deal with' people that, certainly on the face of it, seem more keen on hindering than helping. Thank you. GoldenClockCar (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further comment from article creator. Since creation I also found these references. None are incidental. E.g. Not just part of a list etc. The author has made a deliberate choice to include the website. There are competitors and you can book direct but these authors decided to talk about AFerry.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ee61b8a-82cc-11e0-b97c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2n5wmcEpy (paragraph - behind a firewall but can be seen with the free subscription)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/10091887/How-to-see-the-Mediterranean-by-ferry.html (about a paragraph)
http://www.postoffice.co.uk/six-ways-have-affordable-summer-holiday (brief but prominent mention at the start of the article)
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2004/oct/16/travelwebsites.internet.guardiansaturdaytravelsection (again about a paragraph)

I was advised to not make edits to my article but I think that these again easily prove notability. The FT, Guardian etc are reputable publications. Thank you. GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. In quoting the guideline you left out the sentence that followed: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. That's all there is. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I read the examples of incidental and these aren't it. It's that simple. And there is in depth coverage. GoldenClockCar (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete None of these suggested sources is actually about AFerry - it gets a passing mention, rather like a news article on a chocolate bar might mention it's available at my local sweetshop - it doesn't make my shop notable! Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Steve. There is nowhere where it states that all references must be wholly about the subject in order for the subject to qualify as notable. However:

-- This article is wholly about AFerry: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1333267/Website-week-www-aferry-uk.html.

-- This article is wholly about the AFerry app: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/travel/appoftheweek/4945218/aFerry.html

Secondly, can you clarify what you mean by suggested sources? If you are referring to the list of articles above then these were simply put as further evidence of the scope of coverage from notable, independent, verifiable sources. They were not put forward as sources that might be needed to "rescue" the article as you seem to be alluding to. The article was written via the WP:AFC articles for creation process and to be in main space was already deemed to be notable enough for inclusion.

Given your misunderstanding of the above and and given the fact that you seem to have not been able to find the articles from the Mail or The Sun leads to the very clear conclusion that you did not fully read this thread and certainly didn't fully read the article. A cursory glance should be more than is required before a vote is cast. And solely in my opinion, when that is clear, I believe that the vote should be discarded. However, luckily I have read that these debates are decided by logical argument and not just a tally of votes from cursory readers such as yourself.

However, lets continue with your chocolate bar analogy but lets move it back to the real world. It is extremely unlikely that a travel booking website in the price comparison field would get full and exclusive coverage in an article - although even that exists as in the two examples given. Much more likely is that it would get references in articles describing where to find deals or how to save money. This doesn't mean that those references are trivial or made in passing. They simply provide a normal and natural context.

However, what we can look for is where an author has made a clear decision to make a note of the website and to highlight why it is useful or valuable. In other words the reference isn't trivial or made in passing - such as a list of suppliers of a product (like a chocolate bar) or any other examples of trivial coverage given in WP:CORPDEPTH.

References like the one in the Guardian, given above, where the first line of the article is "If you want a map showing most of the ferry ports and routes, the best bet is aferry.to. Click on the region you are interested in. The site also has port maps and information of varying usefulness (aferry.to/ferry-ports.htm)." are clearly not trivial.

I could go on but I think arguing my case with someone who casts a vote without reading is probably a stupid and futile effort. GoldenClockCar (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could go on, and you have. Since you are an employee of the company, I think that it is best that you cease lobbying on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly entitled to defend my work using logical arguments. This is the THIRD time in this thread that you have decided to bring up my COI. Please. We all know your feelings and opinions on COI from your user page. However, they are just that. Opinions and feelings.

And we all know that you think the company you work for is terrific, and that it should have an article. It is not necessary to make that point after every "delete" !vote. This would be the case even if you didn't work for the company, which by the way would have been obvious whether or not you disclosed your COI. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coretheapple I fear if we go on we will denegrate into pointless argument. Let's agree to disagree for the moment. Strike you as okay? Thanks GoldenClockCar (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website has won an award that is apparently somewhat prestigious in its sector, it's been reviewed by the Daily Mail and the app was reviewed in The Sun (United Kingdom)s travel section... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my responses above I may have not shown enough restraint and from now on will try to be more restrained and to not dominate this discussion quite as much. Please forgive me if my tone was domineering or bullying. Thank you Coretheapple for pointing this out. GoldenClockCar (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on principle. It's not a good idea, or allowed, for commercial editors to edit articles directly. Instead, Aferry should go through the Articles For Creation process. Delete the article and let's start over there. It's more important to uphold this principle than to debate the technical merits of this particular article. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, thanks. It already was created via Articles for Creation. See my talk page [35]. Thanks for your interest in this article. GoldenClockCar (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC) .[reply]
  - Oh. Well, in that case another editor wrote the article then? That's different I guess. Not really familiar with AFC. (However, the history shows you as the initial and principal writer, so not sure what to think.) BTW, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion, GoldenClockCar. It's not about article content. It's a about a governance issue, whether an article should or should not exist. People in your position aren't supposed to try to influence governance decision. You need to stand down, because to the extent you don't the narrative then changes from "Aferry paid a guy to write an article" to "Aferry paid a guy to deliberately corrupt the operation of Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia" and that's a different narrative and you might want to think about if that's what you want people to take away from this. (The person closing the discussion will probably ignore your remarks anyway on these grounds.) Anyway, Delete on general anti-corruption grounds, since GoldenClockCar is too bound up in this whole thing for a fair reading of the situation. Delete with no prejudice against recreation later by a disinterested person. Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. COI is no reason to automatically nuke a page, and it seems that GoldenClockCar has been diligent about following process, declaring COI, and seeking consensus & review on edits to his employer's article. The article does a good job of reflecting neutrality and is very well sourced. We seem to have established here that the business is notable and worthy of its own page. If there was an issue with COI on the page, that would be an issue to be cleaned up by neutral editors, not burned to the ground just to build it up from scratch again. GoldenClockCar, you should post suggested changes on the article's talk page, and refrain from editing the article directly. Wikipedia policy does not forbid it, but you can see from the discussion going on here that the community frowns upon it, as there have been many instances of editors with a skewed POV advocating their positions in opposition of the community and causing all sorts of problems. Not that I'm saying you have. Look through the history of Falun Gong and the many, many, many disputes referring to that article if you want a primer. (Not recommended)

If someone does have a problem with specific content that GoldenClockCar has contributed, that is an issue for dispute resolution and doesn't belong in AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User's COI are not the basis of this nomination and delete !votes, but rather depth of coverage, which is clearly not here. The only reason COI has dominated this discussion is because the article creator, an employee of the company, has responded to every negative sentiment expressed here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best travel website of the week is not notable. Best of the year for a widely respected listing might well be. The article shows the typical straining after any possible source for notability typical of coi editors. The problem with even good-faith acknowledged coi is it often leads to such efforts like that to stretch the boundaries to get the article, which would not be as likely done by a NPOV editor. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emeraude Coretheapple and DGG. Not notable; a thinly disguised advert does nothing to improve this encyclopedia. petrarchan47 t c 19:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a great example of wikipuffery, where a page is built up to appear like a decent article in an attempt to fool editors into thinking the subject is notable. The bar for getting a website mentioned in passing by reliable sources is small. Add PR pieces to the mix and you can build an encyclopedic-looking but still promotional article about a website pretty easily. And this doesn't help the encyclopedia at all as the website need have no significant impact on the world. Thankfully we have that provision in our notability guidelines requiring in-depth analysis of the subject by multiple reliable sources. This insures that we don't become a database of every website out there, or one that sets itself up for exploitation by PR types. Them From Space 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- COI should not be a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern as to whether an article has the necessary NPOV. Even if does lack a NPOV, the solution may well be to edit the article to replace the POV with NPOV. The article mentions one competitor that appears to have a WP page and another that does not. Unless someone is in a position to establish that one is notable and the other NN, we should have articles on both or neither. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment how is that no WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do we consider the World Travel Awards to be major awards? I am leaning towards no, as I can find no significant coverage, and they don't have a Wikipedia page. Having reviewed the sources a third time, and trying to put aside the editor's COI and my preference for not biting the newcomers, this is all I'm holding on to to demonstrate notability. Weak delete because I'm sensing WP:SNOW in the forecast. Ivanvector (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on my comment: it does appear that the World Travel Awards are widely recognized within the travel industry, which the organizers call "the Oscars of the travel industry" but which are referred to by an independent source as "(fairly) prestigious". A selection of references: [36] [37] [38] [39] cover the awards in significant depth, and also as many links indicate that companies celebrate being nominated, let alone winning, though all of those references are inherently spammy and I have not included them here. AFerry has won several of these awards, per independent sources - though the sources are somewhat trivial, they can be used to verify AFerry's award wins.

Regarding the sources provided by the author (who has declared his COI):

FT.com Telegraph.co.uk Postoffice.co.uk and TheGuardian.com are all trivial. They are passing mentions at best, barely that, and do not establish notability.
Daily Mail is a fairly in-depth review of the website. This does lend itself to notability, and is an independent, reliable source.
The Sun is an article that's titled "AFerry" and refers to the company being named their "website of the week", but the full article is behind a paywall, and I'm not giving them my credit card number just to review for an AfD. I suspect this is a reliable source but cannot confirm. If someone neutral has a membership and would like to review, that would be helpful, but we can't rely on it based on what's here unfortunately. This is completely off-topic, but I once again assert that paywalls destroy the internet.^{[citation needed]}

Based on one (maybe two) independent articles in major media about the company, winning international awards over four years, and many trivial mentions in independent media, I say keep as the company meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and AfD is not cleanup.

As for the advertising which many editors have referred to here, I am not seeing the promotional skew. A list of neutral statements backed up by verifiable reliable sources is not promotional simply because it's about a commercial entity, nor because a non-neutral editor contributed them. If editors could point out what specifically about the article is "thinly disguised advertising" as one editor put it, we could fix it. Being non-neutral is not criteria for deletion unless it really can't be fixed, which is not the case here. Ivanvector (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but you are aware that this is the second time you've cast a !vote in this AfD? Please cross out either this one or your previous one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, you're right. As you know this isn't a vote and I meant to summarize my additional comment in the discussion, since it's a bit wordy. I expect that a competent admin isn't going to come here and simply count the bold text and call that consensus, but if you feel strongly about it you could flag my comment with the ((Duplicate vote)) template. In fact I did myself, just to be clear I'm not trying to stack !votes. Also, I apologize for splitting your comments, but I think you'll agree it flows better this way. Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the World Travel Awards, it is a public-participation poll and should be utilized with caution, especially considering the obvious publicity-consciousness of this particular operation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that about the Awards, I ignored their website entirely as selfpub'd. They say they count votes from industry reps twice versus once for public votes (so the vote is weighted) and nominees are vetted by committee. I think that winning this sort of large, well-recognized public participation contest in one's industry is still noteworthy. But I agree that caution is warranted. What do other editors think? Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to recreation when things change in terms of sourcing/awards. Userfied to User:Bearcat/Trevor Clark Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Clark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources. Perhaps others will have different luck for Mr. Clark! SarahStierch (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's another author called Trevor Clark, British colonial administrator and author of The Last Generation of Nigeria's Turawa and memoir Good Second Class; he seems to have got more reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. -- GreenC 07:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I recognize that there is a referencing problem here as things currently stand, the fact that his 2012 book is currently a shortlisted nominee for the ReLit Awards should properly boost his notability. That said, I'm having the same problem finding good secondary sources for much of anything beyond the award shortlist itself, so while I'd like to cast a "keep" vote I just can't. Accordingly, I'd request that the article get moved into my sandbox, instead of being deleted outright, so that I can work on getting it up to a more keepable standard in the future. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. He probably will be if he winds the prize, but short-listed is not enough except for the very most famous prizes, such as the Booker. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To delete, that is. Consensus is however that this shouldn't be its own article, and editors are invited to find a creative solution to this using merging or redirection. Sandstein 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Saturday[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Little more than a DAB. AldezD (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep: impossible to have a single redirect, and yes, it is kinda DAB and hence useful to have. - Altenmann >t 17:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sweeps gimmick night. As usual only notable on the night it aired; any other day in the future all three shows aired separately without the hurricane continuity, or in the case of the never-syndicated Nurses, not at all. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NBC - Too little information to have its own article, but could be used alongside another article. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Golden Girls which already discusses these spin-offs and cross-overs. It shouldn't be mentioned in NBC because it's just one small event in the network's vast history, but discussing it in the articles on one or more of the shows is reasonable coverage. Not sure if it's a likely search term, but redirects are cheap. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude (rapper)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources to pass WP:GNG. Also subject seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 05:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Basically just a list of albums and songs. GNews reveals a few passing mentions and one article, but there definitely isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, not notable and they are just a list of songs and bad reference. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cobb[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:N notability criteria. Being a chief operating officer of a university is not inherently notable. Dansmith1990 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several hours before this AfD was posted, Mr. Cobb was cited in this article [40]. He also turns up in this mix of articles: [41]. This Wikipedia article needs better referencing, but the subject meets WP:BIO requirements. And I should congratulate the nominator on mastering the intricacies of the AfD process on his very first edit on Wikipedia! And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:GNG but I am open to argument. I also doubt the bona fides of the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment A spokesperson would be often named in media stories. That does not necessarily render them notable. Dansmith1990 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a spokesperson: he's a senior executive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears occasionally in some press, but, I don't believe he passes our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He has clearly been a senior person in a series of academic institutions, but on the administrative side. London University is an unusual body since it operates through a series of colleges that are almost independent universities. I suspect that there are relatively few senior staff in the university itself, as opposed to its colleges. This may suggest that he has an importance greater than implied by his title. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepavali releases - Tamil[edit]

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

Not sure if this is required as there are already list of films for every year. This list merely puts part of every year's article together. Having a list for a festival will mean atleast 3-4 more lists. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to check each and every page of yearly films to know about Deepavali releases. Like Pongal releases, Deepavali releases should have a single page detail, so that it will be boon for people who search for similar records. Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial classification of films released in Diwali festival season. Even if there is any established link between film's success and holiday season, that one liner link can go in the film's article. This list is unnecessary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this may seem a trivial classification, even cursory searches show substantive coverage in reliable sources for the concept, including major media such as The Hindu newspaper. Passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please present those here. Also note that substantive coverage needs to be present in detail manner about the "subject". Lengthy article like this one which says that films would release on Diwali and then start talking about what the film's story is, what other films the lead actor is doing, how many songs are in the film, etc etc don't provide WP:SIGCOV of the topic at hand. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the concept in The Hindu: "Deepavali and Tamil films have a relationship that has endured over six decades. Here are some festival releases that have earned money and fame for its makers." Coverage from online South Asian magazine truthdive: " The countdown for the Tamil movies that are scheduled to release on Deepavali day, November 2, 2013 begins. This Deepavali will witness the clash between three first class actors – Ajith, Karthi and Vishal." Any search on Deepavali releases will produce more. That shows substantive coverage in reliable sources, which satisfies WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These all links solve my if-there-is-any-established-link problem. But they still have no different in-depth views. & that's probably because there is nothing in-depth to write about it. After one or two lines of how Diwali brings commercial success, they start discussing star cast and other regular filmy stuff. Maybe you can write a paragraph about it in Tamil cinema. In there you may include some really super-duper box office hits as examples within prose. And that should take care of little encyclopedic value this topic may have. Jotting down all films that released in festival, but anyhow couldn't make it big anyways, is unnecessary and adds little to the already trivial classification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At any rate no consensus to delete, the discussion is about whether to keep this as a dab page or redirect it to somewhere, but that is properly a discussion for the article talk page and not for AfD. Sandstein 10:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary[edit]

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

Contested prod of a disambiguation page. WP:PTM says, "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." All the links on this page are to things that simply have the word "Temporary" in the title, not to things that are called temporary. The only possible exception is that, at least in U.S. English, a temporary worker might sometimes be called "a temporary." That is the only context I can think of in which the word might be used as a noun. So, either delete or redirect to Temporary work. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think that this disambiguation page wolud be best fit to redirect to Temporary work and the article for temporary work should have a For other uses pointing to temp. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this as a disambig. I certainly see no advantage to be gained by removing it. Redirecting it to one example, over all others, is just plain wrong. It's not the most logically coherent disambig ever, but that's hardly our most pressing problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the partial title matches in computing, and leave just with the dicdef and the 3 SAs (ie links to Temp (disambiguation) and ((lookfrom))and ((intitle)), the 2nd and 3rd of which I've just added). That will enable people to find whatever they were looking for, and is much more helpful than just having nothing at all and landing them with a straight search. Do we need to WP:IAR? If so, then so be it. I don't see that the computing uses are any more significant or dab-page-worthy than the many other uses, but it's a dab page which has been around for 8 years so someone out there thinks it useful. I'm amazed that there doesn't seem to be a band called "The Temporary" or a novel or film called "Temporary", etc, but that seems to be the case, as yet. PamD 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temporary work. A dab page with only one (barely) legitimate entry and a bunch of See alsos doesn't make a whole lot of sense, which is why I've don't run across them. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - imperfect, but this is a sensible disambiguator, particularly if a dicdef was added. Also, procedurally, this nomination is in the wrong place, and should be at MfD, I believe. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Luke, with regard to process, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts/Archive, which shows that disambiguation pages are frequently brought to AFD. Further, in the relatively few cases where they have been brought to MFD, many of the nominations have been closed as procedurally improper. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I have seen disambiguation pages brought to AfD, but I've always thought that they were in the wrong place; they're not articles, after all. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disambiguation articles are articles in the article namespace. MFD is for other namespaces. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but remove all the partial title matches as PamD describes (except leave temporary work). In a case like this, I'd almost be more inclined to have soft redirect to wiktionary. I'm really not sure a straight redirect to temporary work is appropriate. In my experience, such work, if abbreviated, is more commonly called "temp" than simply "temporary". I'm sure it does sometimes happen, as with any sort of elliptical shortening, but I think the dictionary definition is going to be more helpful than a redirect. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should note that the various partial title matches are often known as simply "temporaries" in that field. So readers will come to Wikipedia wanting to look up what "a temporary" is. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is verifiable information available in the article, that's fine. Otherwise, disambiguation pages should not assert usage that is not supported by a linked article. older ≠ wiser
  - I'm not convinced the other entries are normally referred to just as "temporary". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Temporary work", or by extension "temporary worker", is something I've definitely seen referred to as a "temporary" or a "temp". Ditto temporary rank. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to temporary work or soft redirect to wiktionary:temporary. buff bills 7701 12:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep .The Subject is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly a state or provincial legislature.Subject is notable as per WP:Politician.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was originally created as an exact duplicate of the Shivraj Singh Chouhan article. It has subsequently been somewhat vandalized so that the similarities are not as clear, but the Political career section of both articles is still almost identical. While there is an Indian politician named Jalam Singh Patel, this article does not appear to contain any information relevant to that person, and would need to be rewritten from the ground up to conform to WP:BLP policies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is very poorly written and is a very long way from meeting wp:blp guidelines. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reason to delete now. I have stripped it to stub and removed all copy-paste from Chouhan's article. The subject is notable; been MLA atleast twice from MP. Also has been in news for some alleged criminal activities. (I am genuinely surprised why none of the editors did it themselves instead of voting for deletion. They all are well-experienced. Am i missing something?) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What you missed is that the need to completely rewrite an article from the ground up is a valid reason for deletion if no editors express interest in doing the rewrite. What you have written is a two sentence biography that contains just about all the verifiable information about this individual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So shall we keep it now that someone has already rewritten it? We don't delete articles for just being stub. I haven't added other info that is covered in newspapers, his and his son's crime-links most prominently. Thats because i would have to invest more time in finding out what exactly is the scene now. Newspapers give you info of what he was accused of, but then there is no followup. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Why so? I thought it was ready to be kept. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted because so far only two people have commented on the matter, and we two disagree. Now that the article has been rewritten, I still do not feel it meets the criterion for inclusion. While members of national assemblies may well be presumed to be notable, the only real proof is in the availability of sources. As Dharmadhyaksha has pointed out, there was a flurry of coverage over accusations regarding Patel, but no follow up (thus I suspect the whole matter just blew over). There doesn't seem to be enough to pin an article on here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Houses become notable enough to stay just by being member of House. They don't have to be scandalous or Mother-Teresa for staying on Wikipedia. The-no-follow-up part of my statement was meant to mean i did not dig in well to see if the followup has been present or not. The low-key news always end up on 10+th page of google results and i hadn't bothered to get till there. AfDs are not FACs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Jalam Singh Patel. The article has been rewritten and the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craven in the Domesday Book[edit]

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

This is a personal essay/original research by synthesis on a minute aspect of an English district that is not itself specially notable such that its appearance in one historical document merits a page all its own. Craven already has 5 paragraphs on the subject, which is all that is necessary. Identifying who held every square meter of land within the district is clearly excessive, beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, let me give my bias. Athough I live in Australia I have known and loved the area covered by this article for nearly 60 years. I found this article fascinating. There may be some synthesis, but it is well sourced. Maybe we can not have an article on every area of England covered by Domesday Book, but that is not a reason to delete this. We are not short of space. There is no reason why 5 paragraphs on any subject can not be expanded out in a separate article if there are sources. There clearly are sources for this topic. I think it should be kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not short of space, then why can't we have an article on every area of England covered by Domesday Book? Whatever that reason is, that's the reason this page should be deleted or userfied. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have an article on every one of them, if there is an editor with the time and resources to write it. What is the point of userfying it? It is eminantly encyclopedic, if a bit specialised, but as I stressed we have the space to be specialised. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I agree with the nominator's rationale, but I wouldn't have a problem if the creator of the article wanted to keep it in a user subpage. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I am not entirely convinced that Wikipedia needs to go into quite so much detail about Domesday Book entries for Craven, I can't see any reason for the charge of original research/synthesis - the main part of the article is thoroughly sourced (even if the sourcing for the detailed lists is effectively primary) and shows widespread discussion in reliable sources. Not that this is exactly surprising, as every part of the Domesday Book has been discussed in a large number of reliable sources, and this applies particularly to areas like Craven which have few other primary sources from the 11th century. PWilkinson (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient information for a distinct article. There is no reason not to go into detail on historical subjects. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient information for a lot of stuff that doesn't meet our notability and undue weight guidelines. That's the reason not to go into excessive detail. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, wholly agree with DGG. And an excellent map there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not regard this as satisfactory article, but it is not so bad that we should delete it and start again. I suspect that there will be more academic investigations of the subject of the origins of Craven that ought to be covered. I suspect a better title would be The origins of Craven. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think that there are grounds for deletion here. There are always going to be arguments about the amount of detail to go into in Wikipedia and how best to present it, but these are essentially editing matters. The present Craven article does indeed cover this topic but is quite long enough and arguably this aspect of it already occupies a disproportionate amount of space. The sort of division proposed by Peterkingiron, though not perhaps with the title he suggests, might indeed be the way to go. The question of what the historic entity of Craven might have been is clearly notable, but many of those looking at that article will be seeking information on the present local authority area and a split between the contemporary and historic might suit all parties. As for just how much detail to go into, the issue is usually whether summaries are adequate. That is for those with detailed knowledge to decide, but there is nothing inherently inappropriate here it seems to me. I might suggest to the involved editors that there is a need to consider whether the intention of the article is merely to present the evidence from the Doomsday Book in a summary form, or to use it as the basis for explanation of what 11th century residents understood by Craven, which is better presented with its map now in the main article, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. --AJHingston (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Garrett[edit]

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

User:Kyleoconnor, the creator of the page, has been attempting to nominate this for deletion, but keeps messing up the process, so I've completed the nomination for him. The reason for deletion he provided previously is "no references and not enough credits". I haven't personally checked to see if there are sources available or how substantial this person's acting and voice acting credits are, so I currently have no opinion on whether this should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Texanhubris This actress is listed on http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Morgan-Garrett/ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=107863 and http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Morgan-Garrett/ . She also won Breakthrough Voice Actor of the Year in 2012. http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/btva-anime-awards/2012/general/ —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried her official website [42], however, it's been sitting in Maintenance Mode each time I have accessed it. There is the BTVA as mentioned before, and the one interview so far is from the anime blog podcast called 91.8FM The Fan. I would like to see her establish notability in some anime expo profiles or anime news articles outside of Funimation's announcement before stamping it through with the rest of the notable voice actors. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to flesh out this article with requested information. What would be considered a reliable source for date of birth? As well, would reviews of stage shows be considered a reliable source to substantiate her capacity as a stage actress? --Texanhubris (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to stage actress, editorial reviews from newspapers is fine although whether to list the specific works behind Dallas is questionable. As for date of birth, if her talent agency has a profile, that would be good. I'm listening to the podcast: it's got some great background information on exactly how she got into the business. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between her roles as Chiaia Flan in Tenchi Muyo! War on Geminar and Seraphim in Is This a Zombie?, she would pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Other significant roles include Kaori Kanzaki in A Certain Magical Index, Canon Memphis in Fafner in the Azure, and Azuki Shinatsu in Maken-ki!. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ENTERTAINER due to having multiple major roles in several different series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Graduate Recruiters[edit]

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

No evidence for notability -- none of the references are 3rd party refs that actually deal with the organization in a substantial way s DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Association of Graduate Recruiters gets quite a lot of coverage in British newspapers - while they only represent a small proportion of British employers, these tend to be the ones cherry-picking graduating students for their own internal training programmes, and the association or its recent publications tend at least to be quoted, and regarded as an authoritative source at least for the views of their members, any time there is a story or feature on graduate employment prospects (and a publication will sometimes be the story). If Google News archives hadn't evaporated, this would probably be a demonstrable keep - but I don't have the time or inclination to work round that problem for this article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple substantive mentions in The Guardian show passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak 'keep' based on eggishorn's search. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Couldn't avoid hearing about it or looking out for it when I was leaving university. Multiple substantial reviews. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per egishorn's sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice to merging. While the keep !votes do have merit they do not address the expressed concerns about lack of independent sourcing of real world impact. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tygra (ThunderCats)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of ThunderCats through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ThunderCats characters. Though that list in itself may be of potentially questionable notability, for now this could be a search term and would be helpful to direct readers to the list. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important character in all the ThunderCats adaptations. There are evolutions of the character in function of the adaptation. The article can be improved. Look at Google Books, reviews, interviews ... For information, TTN performed a redirect due to "Redirect to the character list. This has nothing but plot information to support it." without merging the sources in the destination article. I revert and add a template All plot to let at some future contributors the time to improve the article. Four hours later, the article is being considered for deletion. Obviously, letting time to improve the article is not working with TTN's agenda. --Crazy runner (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List of ThunderCats characters is already too long. The Tygra material there should instead be removed and inserted here if not here already. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We could use with clearer notability criteria for fictional characters (despite being labored over extensively), but taking into consideration the GNG and what precedent seems to be set, I'd say this passes. Tygra is a central character in two versions of an extremely popular tv/toy brand. ...And just to tag one more reference from a different type of site: What Is Good Design - a thesis about the "mentor archetype" -- and Tygra is one of the examples. Not an extraordinarily good source -- just showing diversity in types of sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ThunderCats characters. I don't see compelling sources that show that the fictional character meets the WP:GNG as a stand-alone subject, therefore he does not merit a stand-alone article. The analysis part of the article represents primary sources, as they are taken from the point of view of the creators of the character. I barely see WP:Real world for this fictional character beyond listing toys of the character. I don't think that any of the sources used within the article meet the criteria of independent of the subject sources since all of them are focused on Thundercats as a whole, not about Tygra in particular with the exception of toys, where what's in discussion are the toys, not the character. There is nothing close to reception, analysis or critique of the character in the real world as a stand-alone subject, so I think there is no basis to keep the character separately from a list of characters. Jfgslo (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of ThunderCats characters. No evidence of sufficient out-of-universe notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. The "keep" arguments above do not make a good case for independent notability as seen in reliable sources covering this character specifically and in some detail. Sandstein 10:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pochinko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entire article seems to be one giant fluff piece/memorial page, none of the links provided are of any use Jac16888 ^Talk 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's a book on Amazon named for his techniques and works I'm going to say strong keep unless it turns out Intellect Ltd are a vanity press and the writer was e.g. his daughter. Page not edited because I've no idea what's in the book. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's doesn't change the fact that this page is completely and utterly biased and promotional--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an argument for stubbification or wp:NUKEANDPAVE at most - or some severe editing. It's not something that qualifies under WP:DEL-REASON A simple Google Books search (as mandated in WP:BEFORE if notability is a concern) shows three books with him as the subject and another few by him. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article subject has been the focus of scholarly attention as originator of new performance techniques (e.g., Intellect Ltd mentioned above is an academic publisher in the visual arts based in Bristol, England). The article needs editing, badly, but does not seem so far gone as to require the demolition crew (yet). --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kannathal[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass the notability filter.Challengethelimits (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific in your deletion reason. It doesn't have to pass WP:NACTOR and hence can be kept. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Appears to be just another temple with nothing to distinguish it; there is no assertion of how it is notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 / withdrawn by nominator. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial disputes of India and Nepal[edit]

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

No links or sources are working or have any credibility, the page is solely made for describing the conflicts that either never existed or remains heavily unpopular. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete full of unreferenced statements. Any salient info can be put in India–Nepal relations. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously this article needs citations and other work, but it's notable. I will only address the Kalapani dispute, connected to articles I'm developing or expanding for WP:
- The dispute closed Lipulekh Pass to Nepalis, forcing use of higher, more difficult Tinkar Pass outside the disputed area. Nepal is building a road to Tinkar Pass article
- It affects a proposed Kailash Sacred Landscape preserve (which needs its own article). This preserve would protect pilgrimage routes in India and Nepal along the (Maha)kali River, leading to Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash as well as the sacred lake and mountain themselves. This pilgrimage has historically attracted participants from South, Southeast and East Asia. Now it is increasingly attracted Westerners. See for example Thubron, Colin (2011). To a Mountain in Tibet. New York: Harper Collins.
- The area is increasingly a trekking destination in its own right: brochure

As an author/editor of articles about Nepal and India, I realize there are problems endemic to articles about the entire region. Many authors are writing in a second language and Indian English certainly has its foibles. They often neglect to cite. Nationalism and caste/ethic chauvinism often intrude. Nevertheless Wikipedia has surpassed traditional sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (which is on a subscription basis anyhow). Most of these budding authors need to be nurtured and edited. A few incorrigibles should probably be banned, but that's another matter. Article deletion is rarely the answer! LADave (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's heavily off the track, because it's not popular, it's not covered by the popular news channels, neither it has been brought into parliament of both countries. So what's the need? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's front-and-center in the news in Nepal. Too many articles to enumerate there. I don't regularly read Indian newspapers, but I found references to articles in Hindustan Times and Times of India, as well as an ISDA article (they are funded by India's Ministry of Defence). While starting or contributing to articles to Wikipedia about the (Maha)kali (border) river and border crossings into China with customs checkposts, I am finding the Kalapani border issue to be an unavoidable subject. I wanted to link to the Wikipedia article and then poof! most of it was gone.12:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok then post about it, in your sandbox and inform here, I would like to see if there's such thing to be existing or actually needful to be presented here, at separate page. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through normal editing. Here is a very detailed article verifying that there are many border disputes between India and Nepal. Here is another in depth article from The Hindu, surely a reliable source. "Unpopular" is neither objective nor a reason for deletion. We have many articles about notable topics that are "unpopular" among some people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Mirror and Hindu articles are excellent finds. Kudos to Cullen328 for that. I'd call the former an opinion piece written from the Nepalese perspective. The Hindu doesn't seem to be taking sides, so it would also be good to find and cite something hewing to India's operational position.

Cullen328's point that popularity isn't decisive is also well taken. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper, but journalists find them useful precisely because they are not overly driven by yesterday's hot-button issues. Therefore they are likely to shed light on future issues popping up with all the unpredictability of history. LADave (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but since we have gathered just 3 sources for now(other one by LaDave), can we just add that into India–Nepal relations? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic is discrete enough and notable enough for its own article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have five sources. Three in the original article before Bladesmulti deleted, then two more submitted by Cullen328.LADave (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book called India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. If a book has been published about India's border disputes with its neighbors including Nepal, then certainly the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I mean a article for hardly 500 bytes? And the previous 2/3 links were unreliable. CIA factbook's 2 given link never ever worked, they should not be counted as sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the epitomy of chutzpah! The article is short because you, Bladesmulti, improperly deleted most of it. Not once; three times! There is nothing left in the article for the original links to document. After trying twice to return the missing material (and fix the broken links) -- only to have you immediately delete for the second and third times -- it definitely started looking like an edit war so I let the article rest and went to the talk page and this deletion request page to try to straighten things out.

Really, there was enough information in the original citations that you could have searched the articles and fixed the broken links yourself. If that was too much trouble, you could just have used this approach: Template:Citations broken/doc. Why didn't you? LADave (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently distinct topic with sufficient specific material on it. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, This article is all about Kalapani, territory, which can be added there instead, i think it's not necessary to have another article like this. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article related to Territorial dispute are needed. It has also been listed in List of territorial disputes & I had added a link their today.-Ninney (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sampling of sources that can be cited

Adhikari, Gyanu (June 3, 2013). "Nepal-India agree to find missing border pillars, enhance security". The Hindu. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
"Transnational Issues: Nepal". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved 2013-12-22. (Click on "Transnational Issues:: NEPAL".)
Gupta, Alok Kumar (2000-10-17). "Kalapani: A Bone of Contention Between India and Nepal, Nepal Articles #422". Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS). New Delhi. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
"India's Boundary Disputes with China, Nepal, and Pakistan". International Boundary Consultants website. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
KC (Khatri Chhetri), Sharad (10 September 2004). "Kalapani's New "Line of Control". Nepali Times. Kathmandu. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
Kyodo News International (January 3, 2000). "Defining Himalayan borders an uphill battle". Retrieved 2013-12-22.
Manandhar, Mangal Siddhi; Koirala, Hriday Lal (June 2001). "Nepal-India Boundary Issue: River Kali as International Boundary". Tribhuvan University Journal. 23 (1): 1–21. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
Orton, Anna (2000). India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. New Delhi: Epitome Books. ISBN 978-93-80297-15-6. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
Pant, Prem Kumari (2009). "Long and Unsolved Indo-Nepal Border Dispute". The Weekly Mirror. Kathmandu. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
"Pranab says new Indo-Nepal border soon". The Times of India. November 25, 2008. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
"Nepal Revives Border Feud with India". The Times of India. March 17, 2010. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

LADave (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's only Kalapani, territory related right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Here it says "Of the 26 districts of Nepal sharing border with India 21 districts are currently facing the problem of violation of their territory by India." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear, when it was written or who actually wrote it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the info is outdated and now only Kalapani area is under dispute? And that the source is not RS? Its written by Prem Kumari Pant who has few books/articles published on India-Nepal-China and Buddhism. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:RS, and if you are aware about the writer, there won't be any doubt. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no reason to doubt that Prem Kumari Pant was the author. Is there any reason to doubt it was first published in 2009, which is the copyright date? The text mentions events in late December 2007, so it's very unlikely the article was written and published before 2008 in any case. The article gives historical perspective more than up-to-the-minute reportage on fast-changing events. I would have liked to be able to cite the exact date of publication along with the issue number, but given the nature of the cited text I don't think the omission will substantively hurt the validity of a WP article. LADave (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources now - they just need adding to the article. I would further like to note that the reason LibStar found no references on the article and so nominated it is because Bladesmulti deleted them all less than fifteen minutes after nominating the article for deletion. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other wiki and youtube can't be sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The five links you removed that time were variously Findarticles, the CIA World Factbook, International Boundary Consultants, Indiaenews, and Groundreport.com. Yes, there was a lot of link rot between the five and Findarticles might qualify as a wiki. But to remove a citation to the CIA World Factbook and claim it's because you can't use youtube or wikis was to utterly misrepresent the page. (And even if the CIA World Factbook link didn't work, that didn't make it any harder to use than a reference to a paper book does). So your defence here is almost entirely irrelevant to your removal of all the references straight after you nominated the page for deletion. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CIA factbook never mentioned this whole subject, the link was entire fabrication. Findarticles is not reliable, anyone can write articles there. So the page was almost based on the false information. Thus nominated for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the CIA world factbook mentions the dispute on both the India and Nepal pages I question your assertion. Indeed the section of the report linked had only moved very slightly. So calling the link a fabrication is demonstrably failing wp:AGF Neonchameleon (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but the link itself has only "kalapani" terroritory in the dispute list, not any other, which had been claimed. So it's mis-representation of the source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link itself says "contested sections of boundary with India, including the 400 square kilometer dispute over the source of the Kalapani River". If it was only Kalpani territory that was disputed it would have said that; the link implicitly says that the Kalpani territory is the most significant of the disputed regions and that there are others. Further if you look at the page before you started deleting it we find that the CIA World Factbook was cited to establish two things; first that Kalapani was an area under territorial dispute and the size of the disputed area. Therefore even if accurate your comment would be irrelevant. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Added this source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems, the decision is going to be Keep, so i would like to withdraw from here, after the discovery of few sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray ! Thanks Bladesmulti, Dharmadhyaksha, LADave, Neonchameleon & others - Ninney (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Others are User:Cullen328 and User:DGG. I too want to thank all those involved in this discussion. It is only the second deletion discussion for me and the other one was much shorter. Despite my initial annoyance at a diversion from the work of "building an encyclopedia", it was a valuable experience. LADave (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated if reliable independent sources are found for other elements of his biography than the sex scandal. Sandstein 09:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hocking[edit]

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

Virtually all the information about this individual is sourced from PRIMARY sources which, per the notability guideline for individuals do not "count" towards notability. That leaves two areas where reliable sources do exist. First, his role as a minor witness to the assassination of Rehavam Ze'evi, which was so minor as not to even be mentioned in the primary article on that event (and could easily be mentioned there). Second, a very minor sex scandal (currently being EW'ed in and out of the article, thus the diff) in which he resigned from the pastorate of one church only to take up the pastorate of another. That's hardly the kind of thing about which to build an article upon and, if the Zeevi material is moved to the assassination article, this one comes close to not satisfying BLP1E (though there is some doubt about whether or not he should be considered a low-profile individual). Finally, let me note that I do not have a dog in this hunt: I came onto this as a Third Opinion project volunteer being asked to opine on whether or not the scandal information should be included. I think it should, but I have some grave doubt about whether it should be the only reliably-sourced thing which is included. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment minor witness isn't notable. Sex scandal is - but wp:BLP1E. The big question is how notable his teaching and radio show is. Not very, I think. But do we have anyone in the right subculture to be able to easily find the sources? Neonchameleon (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the peak of his ministry, i.e. before the scandal, he was pastor of one of the biggest megachurches in Orange County, and the local paper often solicited comments from him on moral and religious issues. Lately, he's better known as a writer and speaker on Christian eschatology, frequently speaking at various "end times" conferences. But quality secondary sources? Searching ProQuest, the only substantial press articles I could find specifically about him were an '89 article about a pro-Israel rally he organized, a '91 article talking about the dedication of Calvary Church's $9.7 million worship center, and then a half-dozen or so articles related to the '92 scandal. He also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism for what it's worth. But I'll leave it to more experienced wikipedians to judge whether that rises to the level of notability. Hoveringdog (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made some effort to add secondary sources and generally tidy up. A number of the claims on the page weren't even supported by the primary sources cited, so I pared those back to only what I could confirm (although that encyclopedia article seems a little schlocky to me as well, with at least one glaring error). The Pastoral Ministry bit could still use some clean up and citations, but I hope to get to it. Hoveringdog (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage for anything except the sex scandal/resignation. In a search, I did find coverage about that from Reliable Sources, but we can't build an article around that one incident in his life. Surprisingly, none of his other activities - pastor of a megachurch, radio broadcaster, etc. - seem to have attracted the kind of coverage needed to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. I am open to changing my opinion if Reliable Sources can be found for his biography and other activities. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don K. Preston[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Rationale (from WT:AFD):

I searched both google news and the google news archive and found no press coverage of him at all. [43] I also searched for references to him in google books and found only his self-published books [44]. Google scholar similarly did not turn up any coverage in academic journals. [45] Therefore, I think this person does not meet Wikipedia's basic notability criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article has had the notability tag on it for two and a half years. Thanks. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My completion of this nomination should not be seen as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a former evangelist and/or minister is not notability. If he would have been a current minister or evangelism, it would be a different story. So far I have not seen any clear evidence that he is a notable former Church of Christ minister and/or evangelist. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IP nom didn't search very hard, because adding "-inauthor:preston" to the GB search (and searching both with an without the middle initial) finds multiple books that cite him (usually to disagree with his point of view). Contra Ashbeckjonathan, it's probably the notability as an author rather than as a former minister/evangelist that's important. -- 101.119.15.245 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This source says: "Among the more prominent critics of 'dispensationalism' are such figures as Don K. Preston and John Anderson, who have been producing a wide array of literature and videos documenting the fallacies of the Christian Zionist teachings ". I don't know if he is prominent, but that is what this source asserts, so will err on the side of caution to keep. -- GreenC 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure whether to apply the test of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF to this case, but he seems to fail both of them. What we are claiming as notability is the fact that he published a book about the Apocalypse of St. John that is supposed to have substantially contributed to the field of Protestant exegesis of that book in regards to the eschaton. While there may be a citation or two out there, a quick Google search of his book [46] has listed as its first and second sources the LDS website, and a commentary of Dr. Scott Hahn's view on the subject of Babylon in the Apocalypse. A review of his book from a Christian radio network comes up third, and then you have a bunch of other non-related links before the Amazon page comes up at the bottom. Compare this to the certainly notable The Late Great Planet Earth [47]. The Google Scholar search that turns up the most results for him shows 4-5 articles most of them being cited one or two times, with the most being five citations in scholarly work [48]. I would hardly call his work a substantial development in eschatology, where a scholar search would turns up articles with 100-300+ citations [49]. Regardless of what standard we use, it seems to me that his work has not led to substantial development in his field, either in devotional or academic eschatology, and thus he fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Oscar Markus[edit]

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

Not notable. Sourced from SPS material. Contains mere puffery, such as "worked for so-and-so who became ....". – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A classic example of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery obscuring any WP:GNG notability by hiding potential good sources in a haystack of bad ones. The ones that appear to be in high-enough profile sources (e.g. the Miami Herald story) don't have enough depth of coverage of the subject to convince me of his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Armenia–Israel relations. And/or History of the Jews in Armenia or other articles as appropriate, but consensus is that these two articles already encompass most of the topic of this article. Sandstein 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians and Jews[edit]

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

I do not think that the comparison of two different nations is a topic for separate article. Some parts can be moved to the arm-israel relations article. --Δαβίδ (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep My initial assumption was that this would be a guaranteed delete, but the article provides a wide range of reliable and verifiable sources discussing the Armenian / Jewish experience. Some of the material seems coatrack-ish and synth-y, but there is far more cohesion here than I would have expected. I'm not sure that a list of people with mixed Armenian-Jewish heritage belongs here and details regarding the connections between the sovereign states of these two peoples probably belongs in Armenian-Israeli relations. With cleanup, better fleshing out of the core topic and added sources, this could be a much better article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect (retain all good content) to (1) History of the Jews in Armenia because this article is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of the History of the Jews in Armenia article that ostensibly covers 2,000 years of Armenian-Jewish history to this very day. (2) Whatever relates to Armenian relations with Israel, Merge and Redirect to the Armenia–Israel relations article. IZAK (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, the title is wrong, it's more like Comparison/Position between/of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust", with an out-of-place notable people section. The whole position on the Armenian Genocide part is not suitable for that article IMO, that can be broken down an mentioned (in their appropriate sections) in the Armenian Genocide article. The history section is already a mixture of things from the two main articles. The Notables just doesn't fit anywhere really. --CyberXRef^talk 02:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single encyclopedic topic but a typical "essay"-like discussion of the relations between two topics, falling under WP:NOTCASE. Neither of the potential redirect targets mentioned in the discussion above seems very appropriate. Merging is not called for, because the various articles to which some parts of this might potentially be merged are already better developed and cover those parts better than what's here now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think merging with Armenia–Israel relations is the best option. I'll try to do it in the upcoming days or so. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Since Armenians and Jews have a longer history that Armenia and Israel, why not move this to "Armenian-Jewish relations", similar to Armenian–Kurdish relations? I genuinely believe that there is enough academic literature on the relations of these ethnic groups that go beyond the relations of the modern states of Armenia and Israel. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Media[edit]

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

Appears to be nonnotable independent label. At least, I am seeing no indication in the article itself of any real notability. Delete then redirect to Focus Media Holding (or move that article here). --Nlu (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related article Noise Tank (lovesyou) for deletion. No assertions of notability. --Nlu (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable label mentioned once in passing in a local weekly paper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhinata Home Box[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:COMPANIES at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have produced only one notable film, a short film. That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the WP:ORG I see a company is notable if it has secondary and independent sources. I believe this company has that. We can use bengali newspaper as a source and it's reliable.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, I don't feel that the sources demonstrate sufficient notability (passing mentions etc.). Daniel (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely fails WP:COMPANIES.LM2000 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Waskatenau, Alberta. In this case a very selective merge seems to be best. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Run For Life[edit]

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

A softball event, held to raise money for charitable purposes. The claim to notability is that Guiness recognizes the third game as the world's longest softball game.

However, most coverage is strictly local and not in-depth. (Note that the creator and primary editor of the article appears to have a COI, however noble in this case.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Waskatenau, Alberta. Not sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, but the fact that this tiny town got together to set this record (as documented in reliable sources such as [50][51]) is a noteworthy fact about the town. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to a merge (and redirect, I assume). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tofael: The Tea Stall Boy[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:FILM. Perhaps I'm wrong though, and maybe there are some Bangla sources out there. SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy'. Barring the discovery of more Bangla sources, I'm going to say that this just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. However since the original editor (User:Pratyya Ghosh) is still active, I recommend returning it to his userspace for the time being. It's won one minor award and while it isn't enough to merit a keep on that alone, it gives me the hope that it might gain more coverage in the future. Userfying it for a while would be a good option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting this. Anyway you should notify me about this. Just today I found out that this article is for deletion. Now This film is released in 2013 which is one year. And in this one year this film has received a prize and was nominated for a prize. Also it is a short film. So you should not judge this film as normal films. Anyway I think this should be kept. Now I'll ask the community to comment here. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS:- We have Bengali sources about this film.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is, that we have to judge everything by WP:NFILM. While nobody is expecting it to receive the amount of coverage that a big Hollywood film ala Saving Private Ryan would get, we do need to show that it has received coverage in reliable sources. The length of the film does not mean that it does not have to follow the same criteria as a full length independent film would. It might be harder for short films to receive coverage, but it's not up to us to make up the difference. The only way to really get around stuff like that is for the director to send a screener copy off for reviews. If we had 2-3 reviews then it'd be a much different story right now. There's just not enough coverage right now. Although if there are Bengali sources that aren't primary (WP:PRIMARY) or trivial (WP:TRIVIAL) and are in reliable sources, we can certainly use those. You just have to add them to the page. We need to actually see them in some form in order to count them towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: I've added some sources so that there's no notability problem. The sources are from bengali newspaper or online bengali newspaper. They are very much reliable. I believe it is proved that this film is notable. Now what do you think?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be good enough for me. I used Google Translate to get the jist of the articles' contents and it looks good so far. It's mostly from a specific period in time and the articles are short, but I know that this is par for the course with a lot of India's newspapers. A 1-3 paragraph article is the equivalent of a 1-2 page article in other countries. (Saying this more for the benefit of others coming in that would not be as familiar with how Indian newspapers work as far as length of articles go.) I'm changing my vote to a keep. The coverage is still light, but we don't expect an indie film to get as many hits as a mainstream movie would get- there's enough here to establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a native speaker of Bengali. I checked Bengali sources & seems okay to me. --War Minister (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those! I always feel better when a native speaker checks over a foreign language source- Google Translate isn't an infallible source by any means. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a majority of "Keep" comments, but many stray too far towards WP:OSE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. If the article is to be merged, that is a discussion that should not be carried out at AFD. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey[edit]

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

Apart from the extended quote, all information on this page is also available on London Borough of Haringey. All the sources are either tangential to the subject (Burns), self-published (Heraldry of the World, Civic Heraldry) or copyvivo'd from LBH's website. Initially I proposed a merge or move to draft, but apart from the quote there's nothing worth merging here since London Borough of Haringey already includes just about everything we can use from this page. I propose that this article should be merged or reverted to draft until the problems with sourcing can be resolved. I'm proposing this AFD because we do not have enough reliable sources to attest that this is a sufficiently notable subject (separate from the organization whose coat of arms this is).Salimfadhley (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a no-brainer. Of course the arms of a London borough is relevant for its own article. The article could be improved, but that's no reason for deleting it. Arms Jones (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the proposed rationale for deleting/merging this article is that it substantially duplicates information in London Borough of Haringey without actually adding any new information. Put simply, we have not yet seen reliable sources that attest to this subject's notability independent of London Borough of Haringey. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but the notability of municipal coats of arms is obvious and doesn't cease to be just because you continue to say so. If the borough is notable enough for an article, then the same goes for the arms. The coat of arms of a town is the visual equivalent of its name. Arms Jones (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated that the notability of this kind of article is obvious but is this your personal opinion can you cite Wikipedia policy which attests to the inherent notability of all civic heraldry? I suspect that you are allowing your personal point-of-view to bias your view of this subject's notability when it currently does not pass WP:GNG. I still maintain that this is an interesting detail about LBH, but not of itself an sufficiently distinct topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are so obvioulsy notable that noone has even thought of the need to write anything about it, such as the arms and the name of a municipality. Do you think the name of a municipality fails on notability? If not, your claim that the arms fails on notability fails on logic. Arms Jones (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge to London Borough of Haringey as the article is not terribly long and there is (as said above) some duplication already. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of an article is no reason for merging it, but I appreciate that you do not agree with the idea to delete it. Arms Jones (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease misrepresenting me. The typo in what I wrote is obvious (and now corrected) and I am not defending keeping the article. I simply see that the arms belong with the main article unless there is alot to say, which there is not. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not atempt to misrepresent you, bu of course there is a difference between merging and deleting. E.g. if you merge articles, you leave a redirect, which you don't do if you delete. Arms Jones (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It depends how useful the article's title is for a redirect. In this case, I think the odds of somebody typing in "Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey" to the search box are approximately zero. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, remove anything duplicated in the borough article and provide a summary if necessary. This reflects the treatment of coats of arms for other English towns. Ivanvector (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a parallel debate about merging this article into the borough article is/was going on at the borough's talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFF --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms Jones and Ivanvector. It is a thing; it has interesting detail; it is not the same as the borough. If there is too much duplication (and please note that WP does have the occasional bit of duplication which is generally well tolerated!) then this is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. DBaK (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Why are we not talking about the sources? Unless we decide that all civic heraldry is inherently notable (in which case we can speedily close this AFD), the criteria of notability is whether reliable sources attest to this subject's importance. At the moment we have the following:

HeraldryWorld: A wiki site, hence self published source
CivicHeraldry.co.uk: A personal home page, hence self published source
LBH Website: Definitely a WP:RS, however not significant coverage of the subject.
Burns, R.W: A reliable source as to the history of TV, probably not as to the history of heraldry.
Sheila Peacock: A home-page belonging to a former politician, borderline self published source but from an obviously notable individual however does not significantly cover this subject.
Lindsey Clarke: A "Community Blog", arguably a self published source that does not significantly cover this subject.
Haringey Borough FC: Probably a reliable source as to the origin of the football club's coat of arms, but not a WP:RS for the historical details of LBH's original.
Jonathan Dixon: An obviously self published personal home page.

In summary, none of the sources above are the kinds of site we'd usually consider to be strong or relevant enough to justify keeping an article. As I stated before, unless we can come up with any pressing reason that heraldic topics should be an exception to WP:GNG then please explain the justification for keeping it? So far the most convincing keep argument seems to be from Ivanvector, whose argument is that other stuff exists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self published souces may be strong enough when there are many which say the same thing. They are not as good as books published by well renouned scholars, but you have to judge each one of them by itself. A site is not a self published source just because it uses wiki software. Flags of the World is often seen as a reliable source because it takes a scholary approach to vexillology. Arms Jones (talk),

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Send to draft - Salimfadhley has explained the problem with the sources, but I'd like to add that chunks of the article (such as the BBC Alexandra Palace transmitter or the football club) that are reliably sourced are actually nothing to do with the coat of arms whatsoever. Therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source about the football club, which you find reliable, tells us that the football club uses a logo which is identical to the arms of the borough save for the colour and some text. You say this source has "actually nothing to do with the coat of arms whatsoever". Would you care to explain? Arms Jones (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to read WP:BLUDGEON and then concentrate on editing the article rather than this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you think the articles on the different boroughs should also be merged - or articles of i.a. different national coats of arms, different car manufacturers or different planets. Dagrqv (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding WP:OSE and my argument above: my point was that if we decide this is notable, then it makes sense for it to be its own article, rather than merging to the article for the borough. That would contribute to making the page quite large, and it would likely be broken out again eventually anyway, so keep per WP:SNOW. I didn't at all mean to argue "keep because other stuff exists" but I see how it sounded like that. As for the sources, this isn't my area of expertise by any means but it seems that the authoritative sources on heraldry are ones that are not kept online. They exist but someone's going to have to go find them. The projects like Civic Heraldry UK and Heraldry of the World are ones which are trying to compile that info online; they are self-published but may be nonetheless authoritative on this topic. Problem is they don't cite their sources. Someone in the Heraldry project might be able to help with better ones. Anyway, it seems like the references that are there are enough for a weak keep. Ivanvector (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've copied the important details from this article (everything but the football club stuff) into the main LBH article. I think it works better than the text that was originally there. My concerns remain about the quality of sources - but used in that context they are for reference rather than notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as appropriate. The nominator has convincingly laid out that this topic isn't covered by reliable independent sources, as required by WP:GNG and, if it comes to it, WP:V. Sandstein 09:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Municipal coats of arms are inherently notable with coverage in published sources. MRSC (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. This isn't a deletion request, as the proposal can be implemented with normal editing tools. But what discussion there is supports this proposal, and it appears to be the correct way to proceed to me also. Sandstein 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History from below[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Page names that only differ by capitalization, the appropriate solution for this WP:TWODABS page is to delete the current content, redirect to the meaning that matches the lowercase version (people's history), and add a hatnote there to point to the capitalized album title. Having just finished the disambiguation of incoming links, all links spelled with lowercase letters were intended for the concept in historiography, and not the album. bd2412 T 02:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to History From Below; hatnote to People's history is already there. Did this need to come to AfD? This seems to me to be a reasonable WP:BOLD edit. Ivanvector (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My proposal is actually the opposite of that. The album is on the borderline of being notable at all, while the concept in historiography is highly notable, and is therefore the primary topic of the term. As evidence of this, a Google Books search for "history from below" returns 210,000 hits, in which the album is not to be found at all. Searching specifically for "history from below" and "album" returns less than 300 hits, but most of those are still about the concept in historiography, referencing how it uses things like "family photo albums" as a source of information. Searching for "history from below" and "Delta Spirit" returns fewer than 30 results. If the topics were not already distinguished by the difference in capitalization, the album would need to be moved to "History from Below (album)". Cheers! bd2412 T 16:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You're right, that is better. Still, I don't think this would have been controversial if you had just done it rather than going through AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title has already gone through several such changes in the past. Having a discussion to reach consensus for a particular solution will prevent further changes from being made without further discussion. bd2412 T 17:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope. ;) Ivanvector (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to People's history per nom. No need for a dab page when the primary topic is this clear. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John L. Gardner (brigadier general). Any editor is welcome to merge the content from the history behind the redirect at their leisure. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lane Gardner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Lane Gardner

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

Duplicate article. Text for this page seems to have been copy and pasted from one source with a few minor variations but still has acute close paraphrasing issues. Page relies almost completely on one source. A side note: The use of a person's full name in the title of a biography isn't usually done unless the person was known as such (e.g. John Wilkes Booth). This article was originally nominated for merge with John L. Gardner (brigadier general), but the latter article has much more coverage that goes beyond the content of this page which is practically a stub and there is nothing that this page can offer it. Other page also has info box, bibliography is well cited and utilizes many sources. Gwillhickers 01:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John L. Gardner (brigadier general). bd2412 T 02:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an option, but why not simply delete? -- Gwillhickers 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and change name to John Lane Gardner for the Gwillhicker version as per the discussion on the talk page and the article name in Appletons. The Appleton's entry is titled "John Lane Gardner" and his Authority Control name is "John Lane Gardner". I am the creator of the original 2006 article. Gwillhickers started his version on October 11, 2013‎ and mine was started on October 16, 2006‎, so it was him not performing due diligence, not me. Note the source on mine is the 1888 Appleton's and it is properly referenced as coming from Appletons with the "Appletons" template. Really no need to bring this to AFD when a redirect is so obvious, but consider the renaming per the encyclopedia entry and the authority control name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and redirect to John Lane Gardner. As I said on the talk page, I'd like to see the content merged and listed under the non-parenthetical title. -- Coemgenus (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the John Lane Gardner article has been tagged for close paraphrasing and single source issues and except for a couple of tweaks, has been neglected since 2011, I thought deleting it would be the simpler approach, however either title will work. The major concern is resolving the 'two articles for one person' issue as Coemgenus pointed out. As for the merge, there is little if anything to merge. All of the information in the form of close paraphrasing and copy-pasting in the John Lane Gardner article is already well implemented in the John L. Gardner (brigadier general) article. -- Gwillhickers 00:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that entire articles can be cut and pasted from sources that have had their copyright expire. There is no rule that demands that they be deleted because of that. The entire congressional biography series, and others, were migrated to Wikipedia in their original form and then wikified. BTW, excellent article you wrote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that. In fact I have done that on a couple of occasions, but if left that way it can get tagged, etc. No biggie. In any case, thanks for the kind words. As I said, I can live with whatever is decided on. On retrospect using Gardner's full name is beginning to sit well with me. Merry Christmas and/or Good Will to All. -- Gwillhickers 18:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entho Enikku Ariyilla[edit]

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

The Notability of this book is questioned. Google gives no reliable sources [52]. A part of the article is also unreferenced BLP. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources could be found even in Malayalam language. Salih (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While trying to allow for WP:WORLDVIEW, the tone of this article, which is close to advertising cover blurb, the lack of demonstrated notability for the subject or its author (Google only turns up a Facebook page with under 50 likes) indicates this fails WP:NBOOK. AllyD (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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