< 4 February	6 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 convincing argument that the sources provided are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordhy Ledesma[edit]

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

This article, originally created by Jordhy Ledesma himself, does not establish notability. All of the sources provided are primary even when they are reliable. The claim that he is an "award winning poet" is backed only by this source, which refers to him as nothing more than a "guest poet". The "First Dominican Biennial of Short-story Telling", another claim to notability, appears to no longer have a website. The other poetry organization he was a representative at has its official website on blogspot. The whole article is just more and more of this sort of self-aggrandizing. There are no secondary sources, no verified claims to notability, and nothing he has done would qualify under any of the notability sub-guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had a look for coverage, but just can't see anything which makes this notable - maybe it is because I'm not in web 3.0 yet. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue of notability was discussed a year ago. From then some links have been removed. The coverage includes the Society for Global Information, the biggest latin american newspaper, etc. The Biennial website is indeed hosted on Blogspot, so? When looking for coverage I found about twenty links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think you'd better have a read of the wikipedia notability guidelines which require substantial independent coverage in reliable sources - WP:GNG, and WP:BIO - it really isn't sufficient to have your name mentioned in a newspaper. Further, I should draw your attention to the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, so if you are Jordhy or someone connected to him, it would be best to declare this in the interests of openness, and you would be strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself per the guidelines.---- _nonsense ferret 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability was already discussed last year. See the article history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you aren't going to close down discussion here by these means - if you believe the article should be kept then you need to make a case for it based on the notability guidelines linked to above. I would remind you also about the need for openness concerning any conflict of interest ---- _nonsense ferret 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability guidelines: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - The subject of the article's notability was extensively discussed last year (refer to article's history). Media coverage includes multiple sources, please refer to the totality of the sources. Article seems notable to me. In particular, Google Image search seems compelling. However, I agree the article needs editing, I see the need for some citations. Notability = Multiple External sources + Reliable + Focus on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the totality of the references provided does not constitute significant independent coverage. The newspaper article cited [1] is a passing mention of the subject's name as being at a writing event - this is very far from significant coverage which would need to discuss the contribution the writer has made to the field of literature in order to establish notability. Nobody is going to be convinced by a google image search, particularly given the subject's focus on marketing himself online. I note also your failure to make any statement regarding Conflict of interest ---- _nonsense ferret 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article cites the poet as an "invited poet" not as a "guest poet" like you previously stated. You fail to review to other links and focus only on one link that's written in Spanish, which you probably don't understand because of your previous failure to adequately translate the citation. Not connected to this person, however it seems to me that you are. I find that the article could benefit from greater citation but discard your opinion around the significance of the coverage. Please refer to the totality of the citations. Again, please refer to prior discussions about the notability of the article. Where going in circles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I neither used the word 'invited' or 'guest' as this is totally irrelevant to whether or not a passing mention of the name in connection with a publicised event represents substantial coverage - it does not. Happy to consider in detail each of the references provided, see below. Ridiculous to try to suggest that I have a COI - my history of edits across a very wide range of subjects speaks for itself, where is your history of edits? If there is a discussion previously on WP you want to be considered, then I suggest you provide a link to it

Comprehensive list of references with commentary
Number	Reference	Comment
1	Newspaper article promoting event	Single mention of name as invitee attending event - not significant coverage
2	unknown	dead link
3	blog	blog coverage promoting an event , single mention of name
4	Jordhy's ebook for sale	link to Amazon for an ebook authored by the subject - this has no bearing on notability whatsoever.
5	http://www.funredes.org/socinfodo-prueba/com_vir/memoria/0464.html	dead link
6	http://www.oei.org.co/noticias8/noti12.htm	The subject is named as a coordinator/problem setter at a maths olympiad for high school students - does not carry any notability, coverage not substantial, position not notable
7	college report	Passing mention of the subject as one of ten Darden MBA students to get a full scholarship - adds nothing to the case of notability
8	[http://www.jordhy.com/ Jorhy's personal website	website created by subject, primary source - no contribution to notability
9	[http://ip.com.do/?page_id=2 Jordhy's personal company website profile	profile of subject on his company website - no contribution to notability
10	college profile	subject's profile on his college website - no contribution to notability
11	Wikipedia list of former school students	confers no notability as subject likely added himself
12	Facebook	subject's facebook page - primary source with no notability attaching

_nonsense ferret 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references serve as citations to sustain each claim of the biographical article. Some links dead but the Google/Internet Archive cache shed some light on them. Some talk about notability in page history. Page needs editing.

Second comprehensive list of references with commentary
Number	Reference	Comment
1	Newspaper article promoting event	Hard to say. The publication is major, but no idea on the importance of the events.
2	Internet Archive	Writer profiled as notable within his field. Lists publications, awards, etc.
3	[bienalnacionaldelcuento.blogspot.com/2011/01/bienal-del-cuento-2009.html blog]	blog coverage promoting an event , but bio is included and substantial coverage is provided. Lists publications, awards, etc.
4	blog	Should be edited to reflect last blog. This looks like an UK syndication.
5	Jordhy's ebook for sale	link to Amazon for an ebook authored by the subject - this has no bearing on notability whatsoever.
6	http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4t_E_ubXxX4J:socinfodo.org.do/com_vir/memoria/0464.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us	Subject is selected for Global Information Technology Summit. Looks like a big one.
7	http://www.oei.org.co/noticias8/noti12.htm	This Math Olympiad is the biggest of Latin America - The person served as judge or problem coordinator - does carry high notability to me (the IMO of Latin America).
8	un-included link	another profile, includes awards, publications, etc. will include.
9	link	profiled as notable marketer. Will include this one in the wiki.
10	link	subject's company co-sponsored Miss Universe Pageant in DR. Could argue for some notability here. Will include this one in the wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.156 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 February 2013‎

lets address the new material provided in turn:

table 2, link 2 - looks very much like a blog post which sets out to name 200 writers from San Cristobal - Ledesma has three lines stating he is a writer, he graduated from a university, he edits a magazine portado.com, knows a lot about web design, and authored a few titles. This is not a reliable source within the meaning of the wikipedia policies for notability. Even if it were a reliable source, which it is not, this is not substantial coverage and also is likely to lack independence - there is nothing here which shows any notability within the terms of WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

table 2, link 3 - as a blog promoting an event - this is not a reliable source, it does not constitute significant coverage, and is not independent - therefore this does not add to the subjects notability. The fact that the subject was an undefeated chess champion at school may be very interesting to some, but it is an example of why none of these details meet the WP:AUTHOR. Similarly being editor in chief at portado.com which doesn't exist any more is not a notable appointment.

table 2, link 6 - This is an archive of an email concerning the World Summit ~~Youth~~ Awards - a website which Ledesma was responsible for was selected as one of Dominican's entries for the competition - that makes it one of over 300 applications. ~~The three main categories of winner reported on the site were development/creativity and culture/and community engagement -~~ The winning sites can be viewed at [2] and as far as I can see Ledesma was not one of these winners. Being a nominee doesn't seem to be the same as winning an award, a bit like the Oscars I suppose. What is different about this is that being nominated for an Oscar makes you notable, being nominated for an award at the world summit ~~youth~~ award just doesn't have the same level of notability. ~~I have read the youth award site very carefully and can find no mention of the subject.~~ There is no mention of the subject on any of the official sites relating to these awards, certainly there is no reference that he has won anything Even if the subject were the overall winner at those awards, which clearly he wasn't, it would still not in itself bring them within the terms of WP:GNG. The fact that it isn't even mentioned on the official website underlines the point even more.

table 2, link 7 - being a judge in a school maths competition might seem notable to you, but I submit that it does not meet the levels of notablity required of WP:GNG.

table 2, link 8 - yet another blog entry about san cristobal culture, not a reliable source, with an almost exact word for word copy of the same short biography noted in table 2, link 3 - this underlines that it is not independent, and certainly nothing mentioned here constitutes notability within the terms of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.

table 2, link 9 - so this is a marketing blogger who is a twitter contact of the subject and wants to promote him with comments like "The guy bleeds tech and more specifically, knows how to lord it when it comes to execution of the right plan" - all very interesting, but this doesn't register as a reliable source, nor is it significant coverage, nor is it independent.

table 2, link 10 - the subject is not even mentioned here - note that notablity is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERIT which means that even if the company to which you were associated were notable, it would not make you automatically notable.

In summary there is nothing in this 'new' material which is even close to falling within WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The conclusion remains the same, the article should be deleted unless significant independent coverage in reliable sources can be found. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections

table 2, link 2 - Agreed.

table 2, link 3 - Neutral. Might be interesting to some.

table 2, link 6 - The link actually refers to the World Summit Awards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_Award not the Youth awards. You have to redo the analysis. How do you grade the importance of these awards?

table 2, link 7 - Refers to the Iberoamerican Math Olympiads (Similar to the IMO, but for Latinos), not a schools' math competition. Subject is listed as Chief of Delegation in two Iberoamerican Math Olympiads in which his country won two bronze medals. Wikipedia article also lists subject as "First Place in National Mathematics Olympiad". IMHO these assertions don't look trivial. More references:^[1], ^[2], ^[3]

table 2, link 8 - Neutral

table 2, link 9 - Don't agree. The website is independent, reputable, and the coverage is significant. Does the fact that the writer is a Twitter contact of the subject have any relevance when the writer is publishing thru a secondary source that lends its editorial POV? Barack Obama is also a Twitter contact of the subject, can we assume any endorsement because of that?

table 2, link 10 - Subject is listed as principal of the firm so if the firm were notable inheritance would apply. Found a second similar link http://hoy.com.do/rostros/2006/1/28/188387/Los-premios-de-la-corona

In summary I find the article interesting, it is very rare for a person to do so many things at an internationally recognized level. According to WP:GNG the article is verifiable, and the sources are independent of the subject. With the two cited newspapers (the invited poet one and the firm's), I would presume notability alone on those sources. Significant coverage can be based on the fact that the subject is been quoted as selected from a large pool of participants, as a sponsor, or as deputy in a prestigious math competition. For me, significant coverage doesn't have to mean a large article in a magazine but a large endorsement. So, IMHO, these are not mere mentions but attributions given to the subject by important institutions. Evidence shows subject gained significant independent coverage or recognition as WP:GNG seeks. 65.88.88.156 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis can be summarised quite simply. The subject has failed to win any significant awards. Your personal definition of what is significant coverage is irrelevant, because the wikipedia guidelines are long established and that is the test we must apply here - none of the references cited represents signficant independent coverage in a reliable source, and as such there is no notability attaching to the subject. None of these links represent significant coverage, on the contrary they are not even marginal cases. There is no independent reliable source which discusses critically the importance of the subject. It is very very far from meeting the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR - if you wish to establish notability you will have to refer specifically to the definitions provided by wikipedia rather than making up your own definitions of what the requirements mean. I appreciate that as a self-styled internet marketing guru, the subject is very keen to have a big profile on wikipedia, however wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for the promotion of marketing 'gurus'. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC) And the point I forgot to make, the wikipedia guidelines are very clear that notability is NOT inherited - saying you think that notability is inherited in contradition of the guidelines won't help your case either, see WP:NOTINHERITED. ---- _nonsense ferret 18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hence, keep. 65.88.88.156 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry - you don't get two votes in the same IP address - please remove either one of the votes ASAP ---- _nonsense ferret 18:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note for closing admin - there are apparently two different users contributing keep votes as signed out users, both of whom think the article 'needs editing' but is notable without any reference to WP:GNG etc - both ip addresses are based in the new york area (where coincidentally the subject of the article is also based) and both users don't seem to know that comments are meant to be signed - little coincidences I'm sure, but I thought that should be laid out in the open. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Sourcing in the article failes to meet the either significande, or being a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Phantoms, Forever[edit]

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

No one has ever shown any proof that this even exists. It certainly doesn't look official. I have never seen any evidence besides this Wikipedia page that this ever existed. I, personally, have never seen a copy of this, online or elsewhere, and considering that (assuming it does exist) it is a promotional item from a now-defunct independent company that contains material released elsewhere, I find it hard to believe that it meets notability guidelines. Friginator (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the creator of this page, Playboy rich (talk · contribs) has been blocked for adding promotional spam articles simply to promote subjects that they found relevant. This looks like one. Friginator (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned above. Friginator (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe it did exist [3] but as the link says, only 100 copies were ever made and it was very hard to find that link so I have to say insufficient coverage for an article of its own - maybe worth a mention on the MCR page though. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Discogs is not a reliable source. It is a user generated resource and only one person has contributed to that Discogs page. Also, Discogs says that no members in their community actually own the item. So we still have no reliable source. Friginator (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not in disagreement - that's why I voted delete :) ---- _nonsense ferret 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - verifiability seems to be a problem for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 February 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 Fresno (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto dos Livros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very short, unsourced article about a non-notable musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUMS - Mr X 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Fresno (band) as a plausible search term. I find it impossible to determine if this meets WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fresno (band). If something can be speedy redirected, this would be it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fresno (band) Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Not enough content to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 09:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 February 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. J04n(talk page) 19:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infinito (álbum de Fresno)[edit]

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

Poorly written, unsourced article about a non-notable musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUMS - Mr X 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:NALBUMS, no substantial history and not a plausible redirect like the others. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given below by User:Cerebellum are more than enough for me. Reversing !vote. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - For one thing, it seems unhelpful to nominate an article for deletion three hours after creation. Aside from that, though, this article meets WP:NALBUMS as shown by the sources at pt:Infinito (álbum de Fresno). Examples include [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. If this is not closed as keep, please redirect to Fresno (band). --Cerebellum (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AFD closes as 'keep', we'll have to move the article to Infinito (album) since the current title is still in Portuguese. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above by User:Cerebellum; WP:NALBUMS is met. Gong show 09:40, 12 February 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. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asterixband (album)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a musical recording that may be recorded and released in 2014. No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 22:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER; no coverage found. Gong show 05:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found, non-notable yet-to-be-released album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and probably WP:HAMMER (though we do at least know the supposed title of the album). — sparklism ^hey! 11:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 10 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet chess servers[edit]

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

Original research, unsourced as a whole, and not the subject of notable sources. Hefha72 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The vast majority on this list have WP articles, and those that don't have references. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is unsourced, then put "citation needed" tags on where appropriate, instead of lobbing a delete bomb. There is no definition of "notable sources" in Wikipedia. An article subject requires notability. References on article content require verifiability and reliability. This AfD sponsored by the SPA IP is a mess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list-based article and as such, falls under the policy WP:LIST. That policy says it is perfectly acceptable to create lists of Wikipedia articles to organize subject matter. The article is one such list; most of the entries are links to Wikipedia articles. The list entries that are not links to articles could be subject to deletion, but that is no reason to delete the whole list-based article. The article could use some improvement, in particular, it could use a lead section. But that is a surmountable problem (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and is not grounds for deletion. The article should be kept and improved. --Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking, and other keep votes. It seems strange that this AfD is the nominator's only known contribution to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bad nomination; however, this appears to be a Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not issue. Specifically Wikipedis is not a directory. This "list" is directory of places where chess can be played. Categories (Category:Internet chess servers) and list articles normally complement eachother; however, this is a case where the category should be the only case because of the WP:NOT issue. Ryan Vesey 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, the section "Wikipedia is not a directory" lists seven bullet items (descriptions and examples of "not a directory"). Which one of those do you feel the chess server list falls into? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business". Ryan Vesey 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have identified point 4 at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Here is the full description of point 4:
For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
I don't see how any of that relates to the list of chess servers! (You do?! Please explain.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lists are allowed and I consider this list to be within the policy of Wikipedia. JunoBeach (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory or game directory. OGBranniff (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OGBranniff, it appears you only activity on Wikipedia is participating in AfD's involving chess related topics. Your knowledge of the process and policies suggests you are an experienced editor despite your edit count. That said, the reason why directory is an ambiguous word is because directories are assembled with information for the purposes of navigating readers towards a point of business contact where articles such as List of mail servers are informational. See Category:Internet-related lists. Mkdw ^talk 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is full of such lists. I'm honestly not even sure why this is an issue.Tigersfan (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I certainly think there are merits to WP:NOTDIR #4 here. A directory by definition is a "listing [of] individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers." Where I think WP:NOTDIR loses it jurisdiction over WP:LIST is the fact that the business information is not listed and that the list is merely a list of Wikipedia articles on chess servers. I am in strong support of removing the entries which do not have standalone articles to keep it indiscriminately away from becoming a wholesale directory. Mkdw ^talk 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I have removed the entries not linked to standalone articles. --Mark viking (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bad idea, not supported by WP:CSC. The list is so short that there is no present danger of it becoming indiscriminate. If the list were to grow very long then pruning entries without an article might be in order. BTW, the benchmark given at WP:CSC is 32K. The page is currently 1,142 bytes. Quale (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are omitting large portions of WP:CSC. The guideline only applies if it's a 'complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of a the group.' The list at present does not show servers belonging to a specific grouping. Subsequently that is the requirement to include non-notable businesses. If the business is notable and should be on the list, it must meet WP:GNG in which a single citation does not show that. The number of servers is astronomical and items with out an article or established notability should be removed as indiscriminate information. Mkdw ^talk 03:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. The specific grouping is internet servers on which people can play chess. This is a different and much smaller grouping than all chess-related websites. All chess-related websites would be an indiscriminate list. BTW, at Talk:List of Internet chess servers you seem to be confused about the difference between a server and software. This is not a list of software. Quale (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep predominantly notable entries, meets WP:CLN. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pragmatically speaking, and irrespective of procedure and policy, I found this an indispensable entry. I am not sure where else I could have got such a comprehensive unbiased peer-reviewed list so quickly.Stormerne (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet chess server. Andrew³²⁷ 02:57, 12 February 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian immigration (Israel)[edit]

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

The name of the article is problematic and POV as it implies that Palestinians are foreign to Israel rather than indigenous. Downwoody (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So could renaming/moving the article itself perhaps solve the problem? I see where the page was moved and then was moved back again. Was there ever a discussion or a consensus reached in regards to a page move? Stubbleboy 20:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article seems to be rather slanted and portrays Palestinians as foreigners - for instance there's a section on "Paletinian infiltration". Renaming it would help but there'd also need to be a rewrite. Can you suggest a neutral name? Since the article actually deals with Palestinian refugees from what is now Israel attempting to return the title "Palestinian immigration" is inappropriate or at the very least biased. "Palestinian repatriation to Israel" is more accurate but it's possible some wouldn't like that title either. Perhaps it should be merged with Palestinian refugee? Downwoody (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A name dispute may be grounds for an RFC on the title, or other dispute resolution. It's not grounds to delete the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the nominator has an issue with the title of the page. The article was moved by nom, and then subsequently moved back again by another user before being listed here in AFD. This sounds like a case for WP:RM, but certainly not grounds for the removal of the article. Stubbleboy 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple problems, but there are insufficient grounds for deletion. So far nobody found a good title; Downwoody's complaint about the current title is quite valid. Zero^talk 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as Arxiloxos wrote, a name dispute is not a valid reason for deleting an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep naming issue, not AfD material.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic topic. A rename may well be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 9 February 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aqrab massacre[edit]

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

Lacking any reliable sources. It is possible that the massacre has not happened at all. The accounts on both sides differ, it is not possible to figure out either the perpetrators or the number of victims. Emesik (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The article has plenty of reliable sources (apart from one Facebook link), and it doesn't matter that there are disagreeing views, articles have never been deleted on that basis. Seems the nominator has misunderstood the process. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Just because two sides do not share a neutral POV doesn't warrant the deletion of an article in question. There are a plethora of secondary sources that I have found on the event. I would like to suggest that the nominator carefully read over WP:BEFORE before opening any future AFD nominations. Stubbleboy 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some very notable reliable sources cited in the references. The two policies that come to play here are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N/CA. The news coverage is not routine and a massacre will have enduring historic notability. In regards to N/CA, this is an extremely high profile crime as cited by the guideline's inclusion criteria. Mkdw ^talk 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't overestimate notability of this event. There were many incidents during the Syrian civil war, where more people died and still they don't have separate articles. When it comes to Arqab Massacre, first of all, we don't know what happened or even if it happened at all (WP:V). Second, the most probable number of victims doesn't make this event more notable than a bigger road accident and strategic significance for the war is none (WP:N). --Emesik (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Reliable sources provided, event was notable in the media at the time, no reason to delete. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per others.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 10 February 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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie lynn jones[edit]

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

Non-notable teen actress. As it stands, the article doesn't indicate how or why she's notable. Not even a single reliable source in the article. Simply fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR. — Bill william compton^Talk 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The author of this article has seemingly blanked the page, so I'll put a speedy deletion tag on it and will do a non-admin closure if the CSD nom is accepted and the article is deleted. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 04:09, 6 February 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 speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for delete, per WP:SK. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Henry Maccioni[edit]

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

~~Fail WP:GNG~~ Withdrawing nom per post below, my bad, hadn't realized that being a prefect was sufficient. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a prefect. See [10] for verifi8cation that he was Prefect of Reunion]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 7 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigval Berg[edit]

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

Non-notable bio, no significant web presence (apart from contribs used in sources), speedy taken down, and PROD (via OTRS!), vanity bio, delete. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant independent reliable sources that would establish that inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google news only produces cursory press releases, and not that many of them at that. Google Books lists no reviews of his book. Ray^Talk 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 11 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Eye Productions[edit]

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

No assertion of notability and Google searches reveal no evidence of it. Sources are either primary or seem to rely on inheritance of notability from the company's only notable product, Furcadia. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CORP. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing in a directory, but no independent and reliable sources. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. Mkdw ^talk 09:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 10 February 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 per WP:POINT. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Footballer of the Year[edit]

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

This particular award is not notable. No reliable secondary sources, just a list. Nothing more than the presentation of a list published by an independent organisation on their website. NickSt (talk) 17:44, 5 February 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 February 5. Snotbot t • c » 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you kidding? The highest individual award for football players in the country. Concise, referenced article with 7 interwikis. Do I need to say more? - Darwinek (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of interwikies? Not relevant in the slightest. Highest award? Does not mean it is notable. NickSt (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main awards given by the governing body of football in the Czech Republic. Easily notable. Keresaspa (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a single article - This article and the several other articles are all confusing and should be merged into a better format, some examples are Albanian, Armenian, Austrian, Azerbaijani , Belarusian, or it be, pretty much everything in this list Template:National_Footballer_of_the_Year. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sputnik and Darwinek, both of you gave no valid reason for the maintenance of this article, all these articles I listed before became a content fork, it also must be noted that notability is not inherit, UEFA is notable and the Footballer of the Year, the worldwide award, and the footballer are notables, but this doesn't make the award notable. Several grammy and academy award ballots doesn't have articles in wikipedia. And once again, all of these pages could be combined creating a more concise article. For example, a table with years being the rows and countries the columns, it would be better for the reader and better for maintenance. Forks in wikipedia are only tolerated when housekeeping becomes unbearable which in this case is quite the opposite. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The navigation through the articles is a nuisance (even through the template), so is through Template:National_Footballer_of_the_Year_templates, these content should be reviewed and merged ASAP. There is no real reason for these articles standing alone. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this article and all of those you cite are lists of winners not ballots. What's confusing about a list of winners, each listed beside the year in which they won? Seems the most logical and sensible way to present such a list to my eyes. And what grounds for deletion is something being "hard to navigate"? That's just your personal opinion after all. Keresaspa (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google search for "Fotbalista roku" reveals there are plenty of reliable third-party sources out there to satisfy the general notability guideline. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of sources, but their significance. The listed sources are routine sports journalism (i.e. not significant) and are about the individual players who have won the award as opposed to the award itself. NickSt (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have a number of featured lists of this type, such as FWA Footballer of the Year. With some work from someone who speaks Czech, this would have the potential to become another. Google News is giving me numerous independent sources for the subject, including coverage in many different countries. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination is a clear example of WP:POINT; an article the nominator created on a similar topic (i.e. a football award) is currently at AfD. Giant Snowman 20:30, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risk analysis (business)[edit]

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

This article refers to one methodology only (FRAP) which appears only to be used in the software industry. It does not refer to far more common business risk analysis tools and methods like Monte Carlo simulation, risk registers, etc. and how these are used to understand and manage risk. For example: http://www.apm.org.uk/PRAMGuide.asp - a guideline for project risk analysis; http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Spreadsheet-Risk-Modeling-Management/dp/1439855528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360077567&sr=8-1&keywords=groenendaal+risk+analysis - a text book on risk modeling; http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Risk-Management/dp/1934667412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360077854&sr=1-1&keywords=business+risk+management - a text book on risk management; http://www.amazon.com/The-Failure-Risk-Management-Broken/dp/0470387955/ref=pd_sim_b_2 - a text book on the failure of risk management Risk modeler (talk) 15:25, 5 February 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 February 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article's incomplete, you should improve it, or tag it with a template such as Template:Incomplete. It seems your only actions on Wikipedia have been to nominate articles for deletion and promote risk-analysis books, so you might want to read WP:AfD and reflect on what is an acceptable reason for deleting an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title for this is bad; just about everything at Risk analysis (disambiguation) involves business. This seems to want to be about something called facilitated risk analysis process, and this noun string probably is giving you a sick feeling already. I have no opinion now as to whether this bit of IT-cruft could support a readable article in concrete English, but I do think that this title should redirect to the disambiguation page and that this page should move to its specific subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Risk analysis in business is a highly notable topic; the article has a few reliable sources, the nominator listed more reliable sources, and a quick Google search yields many books and articles on the subject. The main problem with the current state of the article is that it gives undue weight to just one approach to risk analysis and has nothing on other approaches, leading to a highly non-neutral point of view. This is a major problem, but it is one that is solved through editing and improving the article, rather than outright deletion. My opinion is that there are many different kinds of risks and different fields of endeavor have different methods for assessing risk; the risk of a new brand of toilet paper failing in the market is very different from the risk of global thermonuclear war. Accordingly, I think there is room for multiple articles on scientific risk analysis, business risk analysis, military risk analysis, etc. But for this article, the topic is highly notable and the article's problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details), suggesting that this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is incomplete, but the subject is clearly notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:39, 5 February 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intrasomatic model[edit]

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

Fringe theory with no footprint at all. I get two GHits on the phrase and one GBook hits, and the latter duplicates one of the former. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the theory is robust, solid, and noteworthy. How can something be fringe when it weaves together many solid and renowned theories? It is of import to those interested in Near Death and Out of Body experience. Its author is a professional member of the Medical and Scientific Network and the International Association of Near Death Studies. He has authored 6 books with another 2 pending publication (Arcturus Publishing and Watkins Books, London). He has been verified by such as Colin Wilson and Bruce Greyson. I really would like clarification as to what the problem is, as I consult Wikipedia all the time, and know this theory has nothing untoward which would preclude it being detailed here. Tutweiler (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope inclusion in Wikipedia would be based on how worthy and relevant a theory is, and not its popularity. "Hits" really only reveal how well-known something is, and I was including it so it might become more known. Tutweiler (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability; there is a lack of secondary interest in the theory. Wikipedia does not exist to publicize novel theories, no matter how good they are. If the theory attracts attention from others, who comment on it positively or negatively, then an article can be justified. But until then, we are not the place to document it. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's one man's mumbo-jumbo. Delete. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mumbo jumbo" to whom? Issuing from serious and meticulous research? Based on empirical data? If this be mumbo jumbo, delete, and speedily. No talk will save it in the midst of this type of reasoning. Tutweiler (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I meant in terms of allowing others to reference it. Go ahead and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutweiler (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'mumbo jumbo' is slang for original research, which is not the point of en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether Alexbrn agrees with that. Nonetheless, at least one person (you) does, so it should be addressed. Are you claiming that this should be deleted under WP:DEL#REASON number 6? All the other delete votes appear to say that it should be deleted under WP:DEL#REASON number 7 or 8. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted while many irrelevant things stand. It seems arbitrary; but please delete speedily. Tutweiler (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation as to why the above is a bad argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I hadn't been drawn into that kind of argument: I was only responding in kind to those who called it mumbo jumbo. Why not simply cite for not enough secondary sources and be done with it? It was the posters who drew me into an argument about the merits of the theory, which I now see are irrelevant.Tutweiler (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that, for the purposes of this page, whether or not it is "Mumbo Jumbo" is irrelevant. Your best answer would have been to ask him "where in WP:DEL#REASON is 'being Mumbo Jumbo' listed?", thus guiding the conversation away from personal opinion and toward Wikipedia's deletion policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been largely covered above while I was researching: it's a non-notable theory. Most of the small number of Google hits are to Wikipedia, though there are a few mentions on fringe science and sceptic sites. As mentioned above, Google Books doesn't have anything useful. I don't think Anthony Peake is notable either, based on my research, though if his theory has really been verified in print by other people, maybe he is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without comment as to the validity of the theory, the subject is simply not notable enough for inclusion. I searched newspaper and magazine archives for the theory and book by the author, and found nothing that covered the subject in any depth. - Mr X 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without comment as to the validity of the theory, the subject is simply not notable enough for inclusion. I searched newspaper and magazine archives for the theory and book by the author, and found nothing that covered the subject in any depth. (yeap) --Smkolins (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is the lack of citations of secondary sources, then. Good enough. I agree, delete. Tutweiler (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler[reply]
Delete Not notable to have an article to itself, delete. Fodor Fan (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I too, could not find in-depth secondary reliable sources. for this topic. The theory and book are already discussed at Near-death experience#Intrasomatic Model Theory with what seems like due weight, as the theory is verifiable from the book, but not notable. I think a redirect to that section would help those looking for this information. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Lack of notability is not the only reason that an article could end up at AfD. In this case, a bigger concern is that the lack of independent sources makes it impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete Do not redirect, same fringe theory there too. Those find sources links come up with a lot of white blank pages. Mkdw ^talk 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be making the case that this is a significant hypothesis. It appears to be little more than one man's hobby-horse. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:53, 11 February 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. While I personally would favour a renaming of this article to the original German title, that is a separate discussion that can be had at the article talk page and has no impact on the keep or delete decision. Apart from that: there is no requirement in the GNG or anywhere else that sources have to be in English, certainly not for non-English subjects. Finally, I don't think that there was a good reason to relist this a second time, but it hasn't done any harm of course. Fram (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity's Criminal History[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Only one news source mentions it that I have found [11] which is just a brief mention, only 1050 hits on a Google search shows this book kas so far had zero impact anywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article mentions, somebody wrote a whole book in response to this book series. And you'll find plenty sources once you search for the German title of this series: Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums. The article is not yet very good and could use some paring down. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the 10 volumes wrote a book on it. It's the same author in the reference getting credit for the whole series. --Nounique names 05:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the book in response was edited by Hans Reinhard Seeliger and consists of papers from other academics, not including the author of Kriminalisierung des Christentums, Karlheinz Deschner. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deschner's Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums is probably the most important work of literature about Christianity in the previous and the current century! As the book series have not been translated to English, there is - of course - not much to be found under the English title, but the page http://www.deschner.info/index.htm?/de/werk/kg/pressestimmen.htm alone lists 11 articles in the main stream media or by well-known experts. Most of the sources are newspapers and before the Internet was common (e.g. the first is from 1988) - i.e. they're NOT online. I'll just translate one single of them for you (no time for more - but Der Spiegel is really a renowned magazine and this comparison with Voltaire, Heine et al. published there should alone be sufficient):
«Ich erinnere an Aufklärer des 18. Jahrhunderts wie die Franzosen Pierre Bayle, Claude Helvetius, Voltaire oder an den deutschen Schriftsteller Heinrich Heine. In Deschners «Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums» hat nun auch das 20. Jahrhundert sein Buch... Der Verdacht vieler, die Kirche habe schmutzige Hände, wird durch die Knochenarbeit Deschners zur Gewißheit. Die Fakten beginnen endlich die Vermutung der vielen zu ersetzen, und was die Phantasie erdacht hat, ist durch Hinweise auf die Realität übertroffen.»

"I remember proponents of the Enlightenment of the 18th century like the French Pierre Bayle, Claude Helvetius, Voltaire or the German author Heinrich Heine. With Deschner's «Christianity's Criminal History» the 20th century has its own book [of Enlightenment] now... The suspicion of many, the Church had dirty hands, has become a certainty - thanks to Deschner's gruelling work. The facts are finally beginning to replace the suspicion of the many, and what phantasy imagined has been exceeded by hints to reality." Prof. Dr. theol. Horst Herrmann, Der Spiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlmarco (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing GNG met. --Nounique names 05:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I know Deschner's collected information on this issue is unique and it should be known that this work exists.--Eusc (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though I have !voted "keep" myself, this keep vote is not policy based. Notability has nothing to do with being unique. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: Your objection is correct. Being unique is not a criterium. I checked the GNG and think that "Significant coverage" is a criterium that is met by the book, at least through publications in German. Here are two examples: A recension: (literaturkritik.de/Religionskritik? Allerdings!). As already mentioned above, Horst Herrmann, from 1970 til 1975 professor of church law at the Catholic theological faculty of Münster University, who left the Catholic church in 1981, wrote about Deschner's book in 1989 in an article in Der Spiegel: DER SPIEGEL 1/1989: Einer singt falsch beim Halleluja. And there are more examples (Frankfurter Rundschau, 12 August 2008). For the notability of a book there are one or more of these 5 criteria required. I think criteria 1 and 3 are met by the book. Criterium 2 is indirectly met because in the past a lot of prizes have been awarded to Deschner for his work of which the "Criminal History" is the most important. However, the tenth and last volume has not been published yet and will be published this year (2013), so the whole book is not completed yet. Criterium 4 is most likely met because Deschner is one of the most prominent figures in the field of criticism of religion in Germany. Here is an on-line example from SWR educational television: tele-akademie.de. I hope these examples are now sufficient to accept my Keep-vote.--Eusc (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and many thanks for finding those sources (that should be worked into the article). --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing GNG. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 27 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK. I'm just not seeing it as notable. -Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has not been shown to satisfy WP:N or WP:NBOOK.Edison (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems to be a translation of some or most of the massive article on German WP. What did not get ported over are these two secondary sources, however:

Hans Reinhard Seeliger (Hrsg.): Kriminalisierung des Christentums? Karlheinz Deschners Kirchengeschichte auf dem Prüfstand. [Symposium der Katholischen Akademie Schwerte vom 1. - 3. Oktober 1992], Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1993 (2., durchgesehe und verbesserte Auflage 1994), ISBN 3-451-23222-7.

Clara und Paul Reinsdorf (Hrsg.): Drahtzieher Gottes. Die Kirchen auf dem Marsch ins 21. Jahrhundert. Alibri, Aschaffenburg 1995, ISBN 3-9804386-2-7 / IBDK, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-922601-26-X (Studiensammlung zu Kriminalisierung des Christentums?).

If you think about it, chances are a 10 volume work is gonna clear the notability bar, and this does, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Eusc: Thanks a lot! I incorporated most of your references together with short citations (including English translations) to give a picture of how important Deschner and especially his main work Christianity's Criminal History is. IMHO, people here argue solely for deletion, because (1) they are Christians and try to censor (as usual) or because (2) they don't understand German and thus ignore the repercussions, Deschner's works have caused in German media & society for more than two decades! Concerning the NBOOK-criteria:
- 1. There are by now 3 (= multiple) published works referenced in the article (and there exist more!): 2 articles in well-known German magazines (Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Rundschau) and one book (comprising multiple articles by multiple authors). All of them definitely are more than just a trivial plot summary.
- 2. Deschner not only won multiple prizes (German WP is more complete than the English article), but the Giordano Bruno Foundation even created a prize named after him! The Christianity's Criminal History is Deschner's main work and thus clearly contributed significantly to all this.
- 3. As already quoted in the article (see for example the excerpt from the "Der Spiegel"), Deschner's Criminal History made a "significant contribution to a [...] political or religious movement", because the Enlightenment is one of the most important political and anti-religious movements of European history.
- I cannot say anything about criterion 4., because I didn't do any research on this, yet. Deschner maybe fails criterion 5., but as the article Christianity's Criminal History clearly meets at least 3 criteria, which is more than just one (!), there's no need to check criterion 5, anyway and only one conclusion: => ~~Keep!~~ Nlmarco (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deschner obviously did not contribute to the Enlightenment, which happened several centuries before he was born. And the prize demonstrates notability of Deschner, but not necessarily of these books. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Plainly notable, verifiable, and suitable for an entry, even if you only consider the research in this thread. --Lockley (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Karlheinz Deschner. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, at least as far as English sources go. No English translation of Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums even exists. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is absolutely no requirement for English sources or for the existence of an English version of this work. Please base your !vote on policy... --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: none of the references I can read contribute to notability. And the subject of this article (a book with the English title "Christianity's Criminal History") appear not to exist. -- 202.124.73.54 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One person's inability to read the sources is irrelevant to notability, and, if our article title is wrong, it can easily be changed to Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, the actual title of this book series. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, not being in English may mean it is not readily accessible to an English audience, but the German coverage ensures notability. Paul foord (talk) 00:27, 5 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iffy Seems to have some German notability and next to no footprint in English. Perhaps it should be moved to its original German title. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 5 February 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.

There are three policies that come into play. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:LISTN. Sources support the inclusion criteria for each while the delete camp's 'need' is not an argument is not supported by policy or figures. It was arguable this should have not been re-listed a third time considering the building consensus to keep after the first two re-listing. The final nail is the continued keep consensus following the last re-listing. In regards to the rename, it can be decided at an editing level now that notability has been discussed at the AfD. (a bold non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of black African descent[edit]

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

Most of the players are indicated to be "bi-racial" on this list, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they identify as "black" at all, nor does it necessarily imply "black African" descent. There are white Africans, and black Jamaicans, neither of whom may consider themselves "of African descent" black or otherwise. This is really an unnecessary list that is more than covered by the nationality templates on the individual articles. This is another list that was tweaked, having originally been at List of black ice hockey players, which is even more ambiguous in nature. MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: While I'm not sold on the notability on the list, the nom has failed to advocate a legitimate ground to delete. Whether a person "identifies" himself as having black ancestry or not has very little connection with whether he is of such ancestry; to reference the nom's own example, a black Jamaican has African ancestry however much he might reject the characterization. Demonstrably, this list is heavily sourced, and we can only -- failing those sources being impeached -- place reliance upon their characterization. Ravenswing 02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The concern expressed in the nomination about who is counted as black is not unique to this article. Unless Wikipedia is going to remove all reference to the race of people in all articles, it will remain an issue that hundreds (if not thousands) of articles must deal with and have, for the most part, dealt with successfully. Furthermore, given that it seams that fewer than 75 black people have ever played in the entire history of the NHL, the list seems significant enough to retain. 99.192.82.244 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of ice hockey players of African descent. we categorize by ethnic identity, or by nation/continent of origin, but not by race, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality should apply to lists as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is deeply confused. It names, at the top of the page, Category:Black Canadian people as an example of a page listing by ethnicity, yet that category defines its members as being of one of a variety of ethnicities, all of which only have a racial component in common. It also recommends checking List of ethnic groups to see the difference between ethnicity and race, yet "Black British", defined as anyone who is both British and black, is on that list. If "Black Canadian" and "Black British" are counted as ethnic groups, then I see no reason not to count "black African descent" as an ethnic group. 99.192.83.4 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.82.244)[reply]
Comment: I just took a quick look at the list and all but one person on the list is American or Canadian. So since African-American and African-Canadian are both recognized as ethnicities, not races (I still find this distinction baffling), the list could be renamed List of African-Canadian and African-American ice hockey players. To get Johnny Oduya, the only non-North American on the list, it could be called List of African-Canadian, African-American, or African-Swedish ice hockey players. 99.192.68.250 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.82.244)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tougher case than the lists for Middle Eastern and Latin American descent, especially since books have been written about black history in hockey. I rode the fence on this topic in the 2010 AFD, though I leaned keep then. Now, I lean delete because while the topic of black history in hockey is notable, I don't really see any great need for this list. I don't really buy 99.192's argument that the list is notable because Fewer than 75 black players have played in the NHL. That introduces an arbitrary standard. What is the cut-off for when so many black players have been in the league that a list is no longer desirable? 100? 250? 500? Personally, (and equally as arbitrarily), I think we've passed the point where there is any value in listing players by racial ancestry. Consequently, there is no intrinsic notability in this list. Reso lute 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I notice that there is a page called List of NHL players, which includes all present and past players and there is a category called Category:Living people, with over 600,000 pages belonging to it, so it would seem irrelevant how few the number of black players is to it meeting a standard for inclusion. 99.192.68.250 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.82.244)[reply]
This seems to be a perfectly valid list, and the arguments to delete don't convince nme. Keep. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after reviewing the comments above, as well as reviewing the pageviews for this page it seems to be a notable subject with traffic to support it. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:48, 5 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced list. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 9 February 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 Miss Asia Pacific World. The individual year pages should bemerged to Miss Asia Pacific World which will be kept. J04n(talk page) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article already deleted before, re-created by a now blocked user from the country of the pageant. possible pageant official. A fake pageant where the original winner resigned after 24 hour and the first runner up was also dethroned. Many contestants quited the pageant as the officials faked results etc which is not mentioned in the article. The article creator is a blocked account which in its original version didnt even mention the original winner and had even replaced her name with a fake name of a contestant that never participated. Possibly only keep main article Miss Asia Pacific World. This article is about a non-notable pageant.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the nomination of this fake pageant.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 20 January 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 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all it is indeed a not notable pageant.94.234.170.71 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have tagged the bundled articles for deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) was an important participant in the outcome of the previous AfD, I have notified them of this one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Note to closing admin - OK, so you want to influence the outcome of this AfD by notifying other editors. Hope the closing admin takes that into consideration that a pro-keep editor has been notified. Its up to the closing user to evaluate if that is something good or bad.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. I have not made a decision in this reincarnation of the AfD. Knowing that Northamerica would be interested in commenting based on their position in the last AfD, I notified him using ((please see)). Frankly, I am actually leaning towards a delete. I am interested in Northamerica's opinion. They have not yet responded and they have every right to do nothing. I reviewed the guideline against WP:CANVASSING before I notified Northamerica1000, and found that the notification "on the talk page of concerned editors" is appropriate. The guideline explicitly states examples of that bullet point: "Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.". I have a strong and good faith belief that my notification to Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) was not canvassing. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - All of the articles are very biased, as they were largely edited by an editor with a COI and username blocked as such. While I am hesitant in deleting Miss Asia Pacific World by means of my stand on the previous AfD, I think that the controversy surrounding this subject pretty much died down. The article states that BBC's original coverage of the scandel was "mishandled", if that means anything at all. The sources point to a controversy, and coverage seems significant, so my !vote is weak. I propose deletion because I feel that a completely neutral article would be highly improbable with all the conflicts of interest and lack of diverse and recent coverage. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miss Asia Pacific World and merge sourced information from the others into it. Miss Asia Pacific World in general has received enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. Source examples about the pageant include: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Here's two about alleged kickbacks/bribes, with some mentions: [17], [18]. Ongoing coverage regarding it's participants also occurs. Examples include: [19], [20], [21], [22]. Significant coverage about each annual event may not be existent at an appropriate degree to qualify standalone articles for each year's event. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 22 January 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, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm suspicious of the fact that this article uses 37 citations for a single sentence, yet fails to mention why one of the three women who held this title was dethroned after serving for eight months (something which would seem to be significant for understanding the situation). In addition, one of the sources cited says that "many pageant sites do not care about this rigged pageant anymore". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more specific, delete the individual years' entries Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, Miss Asia Pacific World 2012, and Miss Asia Pacific World 2013 but no opinion as to the general article Miss Asia Pacific World. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miss Asia Pacific World, notability (albeit negative) does exist, per @Northamerica1000. Delete all the others. I would also argue, given the existing evidence at this point, that the bios of the... winners should be deleted or at the very least redirected to the main article. I've never seen so many redundant references, by the way. It must be some kind of record. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Nomination is based on their own personal judgment about the credibility of the pageant, not on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nominator ignores multiple articles which go beyond a passing mention and which could very well satisfy WP:N when the nominator considers two mere mentions of a name to be enough to show notability [23]. Nominator goes overboard !voting keep to the extent of saying keep per relister. Gives a reason of keep because sources show music?? Claims passing GNG when no reliable sources are provided. In the face of nominators excessive inclusionism this reeks of bad faith. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is more bad faith and disruptive to !vote speedy keep in a AfD discussion and then dont give any good reason for it except some sort of vendetta against the AfD nominator. And why not bring it up at My talk page instead of an AfD discussion. Very strange. I would ask the closing user to ignore the obviously nonsense and talk page appropriate comment from the user above that adds nothing to the discussion. BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this situation up at the users talk page so the user gets a fair and good faith opportunity to explain what the reasons for this outburst was. As the user should have done in the first place. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 29 January 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, LlamaAl (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The pageant is not notable and the article is just promotional from the owner and staff of the pageant. Miss Asia Pacific World is copycat of a notable pageant Miss Asia Pacific International.--Arielle Leira (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 7 February 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, without prejudice to the merge discussion that has already opened. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta Inn[edit]

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

Delete, claims notability but none shown in sourcing and should probably at most if kept be merged with overall parent corp, I believe this fails WP:ORG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DON'T CONSIDER A HOTEL CHAIN WITH 61 HOTELS TO BE SIGNIFICANT? I linked to the website too - you can see the hotels there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I consider this discussion closed, so I'm going to delete the deletion notice now, unless anyone objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't find them notable, please review WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG this isn't a directory for a business and please do not remove the deletion template this discussion will last seven days before a consensus is made. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so why does a hotel such as Embassy Suites have its own web page? They have about 200 locations. Even individual hotels have their own websites. I just can't believe such a major chain as Fiesta Inn does not have its own web page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time and read the policies already linked please! It will only help with your understanding. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Grupo Posadas. This is a well-known large hotel chain in Mexico, with presence in most of the country's tourist locations. There are plenty of travel guides that mention the hotels and a cursory search shows that the hotels are commonly reviewed in well-known travel sites. Also as WP:PRODUCT of a company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I will however note that there doesn't seem to be enough material there, and the company's article is small as well. So I think a redirect would be best, as we do with a lot of product articles as alternative to deletion. The author(s) can easily create a section in that article for what little material on the hotels there is, with no prejudice to expanding to standalone article when the amount of information merits it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support FreeRangeFrog! I guess a redirect would be OK - certainly preferable to a deletion. I'm trying to expand the Fiesta Inn article too. Larry Grossman (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone - what do you think about the article now? Have I made enough improvements for a stand-alone article? If not, maybe could merge with Group Posadas as FreeRangeFrog suggested. I don't know how to merge articles though. Thanks. Larry Grossman (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone - would it be OK if I remove the consideration for deletion notice now that I've updated the article? Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a better question is - would it be OK to close out this discussion now and consider that the consensus is for keeping the article now that I have made the requested improvements? Larry Grossman (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open now for over two weeks. I believe I have made the requested improvements, so it seems like the consensus is to keep the article as a stand-alone as improved. I therefore intend to do a non-admin closure of this discussion soon and remove the notice in the article that the article is under consideration for deletion. Please let me know if you object to my doing a non-admin closure of this discussion at this time. Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a redirect and a delete rationale. I'm not sure why this hasn't been commented on more but I'd prefer if we have a more thorough discussion. Let me get another editor to make sure this is listed correctly. Sorry to drag all this out for you, I know that's a frustrating thing to go through. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you can see the post [[24]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to a new section in Grupo Posadas. This will help to bolster the Grupo Posadas article, together with the additional refs supplied for Fiesta Inn, will allow the notability tag to be removed from Grupo Posadas, and provide the right level of coverage for both organizations. In this way anyone searching for info about Fiesta Inn will still easily find it without giving undue weight to it. —Baldy Bill (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the best outcome is to merge both articles. Diego (talk) 19:27, 25 January 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, Funny ^Pika! 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, notability must be shown, but has not; no strong sourcing. Merging with parent is optional, though.Editor400 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Merge to Grupo Posadas~~ The topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but since the Grupo Posadas article is a stub-class article, it may make sense to include information in one place. Source examples for Fiesta Inn include, but are not limited to (some are non-English): [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. These can be used to improve and expand information about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above ... and may I ask, why was this AfD, with a clear consensus to merge, relisted yet again? Ravenswing 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - and redirect to Grupo Posadas ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and disappointed I rather expected North to come up with a better argument. I mean, your comment shows that you do look for sources and do all the right things, but your conclusion follows no policy or anything. The stub status of Grupo Posadas is utterly irrelevant to this article. Though I notice that that can be easily expanded on its own merits. But we're talking about Fiesta Inn here and North has already done the work for me, but I guess i'll just reiterate it.

FIESTA INN CELEBRATING INDUSTRY MILESTONES - Arizona Republic

Fiesta Inn begins work on new conference center - East Valley Tribune

Tempe's Fiesta Inn sold, update planned - Phoenix Business Journal

Recibe el Fiesta Inn Distintivo H - Periodico AM

This is only a tiny, tiny sampling of the available sources. The arguments to merge above have no basis in policy and, indeed, seem to give evidence of notability and how this article should be kept. Silver seren^C 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, I have revised my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apologies if I offended you at all. Silver seren^C 09:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Silver seren above, some basic research shows notability, but the article does need work. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:43, 5 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable chain, significant size. Merge discussion can continue outside AfD, no delete votes aside from nominator.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pls. also note that I am working to further improve the article and, indeed, incorporate the references noted above by other commentators.Larry Grossman (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Ravenwswing's assertion above that there is a clear consensus to merge. If you tabulate the above votes, there are more keeps than merge. Please note that Grupo Posadas recently sold off two of its brands, Caesar Park and Caesar Business,^[1] which illustrates why brands should have their own articles, and I doubt almost anyone would have insisted that Grupo Posada's now defunct Mexicana should not have had it's own Wikipedia entry.Larry Grossman (talk) 16:27, 7 February 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. Article has been improved to meet notability standards. C 679 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sports F.C.[edit]

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

No indication why this topic is notable. C 679 14:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment played in the FA Cup which is generally considered notable. Giant Snowman 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although their tenure in the English league system was short, they played in the FA Cup and won the Kent League, both of which make them notable in my opinion. I'm sure this article could be expanded. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in FA Cup and at level 10Babylon77 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see in the link provided that they only played in the qualifying round of the FA Cup (and qualifying round of the FA Trophy) and not in the main draw. The qualifying for 1969-70 lists 280 matches (excluding preliminary round and replays), I would be hesitant to say each of these clubs should automatically be considered notable. Another comment was that this article could be expanded; apparently seven years of being on Wikipedia has yielded a grand total of zero references. Nothing here screams notability, so I would question this "automatic notability" which seems to be being given far too freely on this occasion. There is certainly no hint of WP:GNG to be found. C 679 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a load more content, all reliably sourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been massively improved, now up-to-scratch and notability not an issue. Giant Snowman 22:17, 8 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot commercial[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Possibly falls foul of WP:NEO. Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Once I got the Department of Transportation out of the picture, I got some usage of a term, but nothing that suggested anything like agreement on what the phrase means. The best hit was a thirteen year old Tufts U student paper hit that talked about dot-com ads. I saw no hit that used this specific definition. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it's not sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 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. Although valid issues requiring editorial discussion have been brought here, the consensus here is to keep. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

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

A list of sources that might be used in other articles is not itself an article, and does not belong in the main namespace. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

too soon I'm not sure what this article is, and where it's going.

Is it a simple biography list, following a split? That seems strange practice – surely we list such a biography in the articles where these sources are cited, as necessary to support those article? It would be a problem for them if readers had to trail across multiple articles to check sources, let alone the maintenance. The only reason to split the content seems to be either because it was previously too big (we're just not that restricted for space) or because many of these were cited across multiple articles (and we can't afford to ever duplicate a byte). If this really was boilerplate content for multiple articles, then that's what the template namespace is for – although that would be unwiedly unless the lists were known to be staying the same across both articles long-term.

It's not an article. It's a bibliography. That is, it is an appendix from another article; it is not article content. There's no precedent in the manual of style for forking out appendices such as 'Bibliography' or 'Further reading' to separate articles. And it is unclear how anyone would know to find it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a literary critique of the many and various sources that are widely used in the study of Witnesses, then I think that would be an excellent article topic. However such an article relies on sourcing, and there's probably WP:CaseLaw on how such bibliographies are handled. Clearly the current article is nowhere near this as yet, but it's early days following a split and the author should be given opportunity to develop it.

I would appreciate comment from Alan Liefting on just why he's split this and what he's trying to aim for. I'd also say that whatever needs doing to this article, so soon after its split, a discussion of its deletion is not appropriate or urgent at this time. We surely don't want to blank this list from WP space altogether, other articles are depending upon it (wherever it's stored). As to tagging it for speedy deletion, then that's a far from helpful move. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bibliography list articles are permitted per WP:L (see also Category:Bibliographies and Category:Bibliographies by subject). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the bibliography lists contain works by a particular author (and we already have List of Watch Tower Society publications), or about a broad subject (such as religion or history), and certainly not as a content fork. There still doesn't seem to be precedent for a separate article giving a bibliography about a very specific subject, especially where it is an attractive target for bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in Category:Bibliographies by subject there are all sorts of arcane topics so topic such as the Jehovah's Witnesses is deserving of its own bibliography. And it is not a content fork - it is a split. And having List of Watch Tower Society publications is not a replacement for a wider set of publications. And finally, your concerns about "an attractive target for bias" are misplaced. That goes for all of WP and we have ways of dealing with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think looks like an experienced/respected/sensible User has hived off massive bibliography from another article into Category:Religious bibliographies. So what? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"experienced/respected/sensible User"? You obviously don't know me very well!

-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then Alan, "crazed near-vandal, hell-bent on personally destroying Wikipedia's categorization system", if that makes you feel any better. I do happen to think you're right on this one though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's better! That is exactly what I want to do! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The title is encyclopedic but the annotations make this original research. Some sort of subdivision by date or topic would be beneficial, but as soon as opinions (very short unsourced essays) are offered about this book or that, it crosses the line, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the annotation would be an improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the annotations would be an even bigger one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the books serve as sources for their own annotations? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're an acceptable source for their own publisher, ISBN etc., but not much beyond this. Where a commentary on the books (which is why an article like this would become valuable) extends to "Prof. Deicide's book is a valuable history of the early development of the church, but his own opinions get out of hand when he accuses the Archdruid of sacrificing kittens", then that needs secondary sources, where WP:RS support the detail of why the book is important and what can be said about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too concerned if it is deleted but I am leaning towards keep. Most of it was stuff commented out in a "Further reading" section the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was too much to have hidden away. And I am a fan of bibliographies. I was concerned that there would be a bias in the list but I added other stuff, and it can be fixed of course. The annotation should be removed as an improvement. I have to admit that creating the article was a sloppy job, and I am far from proud of it, but in my defence it is not my topic area. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this pseudo-article is retained, it does not mean that Further reading sections should be removed from other JW-related articles (as you did at the main Jehovah's Witnesses article). Also, books appearing in the various Further reading sections (if present) at different JW-related articles should be within the scope of each article rather than duplicating the same broad list across multiple articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call it a bibliography rather than "pseudo-article" shall we? And note that there are a number of biblio pages so it seems the community is in favour of them. As for splitting info out of the Jehovah's Witnesses that was a valid move. What I should have done is left a link to the new article. Articles grow so we create new ones to avoid them from becoming bloated. I see that you have reverted my removal of the "Further reading" in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. If the new biblio is retained having that section is unneeded repetition and a link to a more extensive biblio would be better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Further reading section is an appendix, not content to be forked out to a separate article. Also, as previously stated, different JW-related articles may have different sources for further reading for each article's own scope. It is not helpful to point such articles to an attempted one-size-fits-all bibliography.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Further reading section is just that - a list of publication recommended by WP editors to the readers. They are not the same as references or sources, which are actually used in the article. A Further reading section can therefore be split of without affecting the integrity of the article. I am not suggesting the individual articles should not have a Further reading section, it is just that an overview biblio page is a good thing. BTW, I note that you are a fellow atheist (not that it has any bearing on this discussion). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:APPENDIX until you understand that the Further reading section is not part of the main article content.

Why would you add something that has no bearing on the discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading section is an appendix, not content"

If we all accept that statement, then does it not indicate that this appendix could quite reasonably be kept as a free-standing page, under a title that equates to "Reading list on Jehovah's Witnesses"? That's an article that could have its own sections: doctrine, theological commentary, pro- and contra- critiques from outside. Such a topic certainly has value to readers (given my doorstep traffic in recent weeks, I'm actually in need of it myself).

In physical book publishing, an appendix is bound at the rear of the book, traditionally printed on separate signatures. In some large publications, the appendix is often a separate volume. I see no a priori reason why a section, even online, being an "appendix" means that it can't be a separate page title in wikispace, rather the contrary in fact.

Some disjointed comments:

Such a reading list should (modulo WP:IMPERFECT) include commentary on the texts listed, as such reliable, sourced commentary is made available. It should also group the texts according to their publisher (at least as official Witness or non-Witness) and by the broad slant of their content. A reader looking for social history vs theology shouldn't have to wade through the lot.
Each Witnesses article still needs its own Bibliography and Further reading sections. These are big articles, both are justified. This article as a stand-alone doesn't remove those sections. I see real problems (as already noted) with doing so, because it makes the bibliography less accessible and because the relevant per-article reading list is probably a small subset.

However an overall list, as a stand-alone, this article still has its own value.

I'm puzzled by some omissions from this list (I've recently been tidying technical cite formats in Jehovah's Witnesses). Beckford and Hoekema are frequently cited in that article, yet they're not in this bibliography. Is there a deliberate reason?

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for those omissions is that, as stated before, the author of the page (Alan Liefting) lifted the content for the Bibliography 'article' from Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and as such is primarily a list of sources critical of the group. Presenting such a list as simply a general list of sources about the groups clearly has problems relating to neutrality. (Obviously, that problem can be fixed, if it can be demonstrated that the article actually provides any benefit.) Further, it remains that even if the 'article' is retained, it does not replace the purpose of the actual articles having their own Further reading sections, with works that are directly pertinent to the different scopes of the various articles. That said, there probably isn't much purpose for retaining it as an article at all, though there may be some benefit in something similar as a subpage of the JW WikiProject itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The semantic arguments about the word appendix and comparisons with a printed book are irrelevant. Wikipedia's Manual of Style fairly clearly indicates where appendices go.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley acknowledges that the presence of this 'article' does not remove the need for the Further reading sections at the individual articles, which I've pointed out from the outset. Yet when this article was created, the author removed the Further reading section from other articles. The other articles should indeed have their own bibliographies, making this article a redundant orphan. If not deleted, on the grounds that it may provide a resource for research for additional content, a suitable alternative would be to move it into the WikiProject namespace, as already suggested. However, since such a list would also be present at the main JW article, that also may not be necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your points here seem like directions for editing it, not deleting it. I see value to a "reading list", as a stand-alone article, for topics that are as large and complicated as the Witnesses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about editing it were in response to your query about obvious omissions. However, the main thrust of what I said was that if it is retained, it is not a replacement for the Further reading sections at the articles themselves, and is likely to be orphaned anyway. Whilst it may be useful to have such a resource for editors, that would probably be more helpful as a WikiProject subpage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we bring it to standard as a resource for readers, then it serves editors too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've stated that you agree that the other articles should retain their own Further reading sections (though Alan seems to disagree). On that basis, why is there any need for a separate bibliography, when it is unlikely that people would search for "Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses" anyway?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you note above, the article bibliographies would be topic-specific for each article, thus small. There's value to an overall bibliography, annotated, on the overall broad topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about whether the bibliography is retained (though hardly anyone will find it), so long as Alan understands that it does not mean hacking the Further reading sections out of other articles. I maintain that if it is retained, it would serve better as a subpage of the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are for some reason making assumptions on what I intend doing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to what you had already commenced doing.[33] And you also stated your intention to split the Further reading sections from other articles rather than each article retaining its own section.[34][35]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that I have added citations, this list satisfies the notability criteria for stand-alone lists and verifiability. The name is a little confusing, though - I wasn't sure if it meant by or about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I recommend renaming it to Bibliography of works on the Jehova's Witnesses. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is essentially a list of references. The References section that has been added is quite awkward, and it's unclear how the items that have been added as 'references' inherently 'justify' any of the other items on the list. Or, if they do, why any un-'referenced' entries should remain.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The page is a bibliography. They can be used as references of course. I agree that the reference added are awkward and I will be changing it. Watch that space! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you need to read the link I provided (WP:LISTN). The point of the references is to establish the notability of the list as a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography does not need refs in the same way the facts don't. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does! A bibliography is a stand-alone list and the rules and manual of style requirements for the latter apply to it. Again, read WP:LISTN; and also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Types_of_lists, WP:SAL, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Relevant_guidelines_and_manual_of_style. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links you give are not really related to referencing. W:LISTN is for notability and the other are for MOS and I fully agree that biblo pages should meet both these requirements. Also, not that many of the other biblio pages do not have refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to hear you say the links are not related to referencing. How do you establish notability, if not by referencing? The kind of notability I am establishing with those "awkward" references is described in WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ..."

True, many other biblio pages do not have third-party refs, but that is mainly because the notability criteria for lists are not as well known as those for articles. Have a look at any of the featured bibliographies and you'll see lots of third-party refs. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there are only featured bibliographies of works by a particular author, not about a topic, which is far more arbitrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with many of the above criticisms of the list, but they are not relevant to a deletion discussion. They can be addressed separately. In particular, the sources I have provided can help with the question of neutrality. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created with the stated purpose of removing the existing Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, which the author then proceeded to do. That action was not and is not appropriate. There is some latitude for the article to become something more than its original purpose—as a resource for editors—but that still doesn't serve much purpose as an (orphaned) article and would be better associated with the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, that is not true at all. PLEASE keep to the facts and PLEASE read what I have already written. I created the article because there was a large number of publications listed in an article and they were useful for readers (and editors of course). Why do you want to deny readers of Wikipedia, you know - the vast majority of visitors here and the reason why we are here, the opportunity to find what I would hope will soon be a definitive list of JW-related publications? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the article, you stripped out the existing Further reading section from Jehovah's Witnesses.[36] Why are you now claiming you did not? I haven't 'denied' readers anything at all. It's fairly unlikely that anyone would search for Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you deleted the list of sources from the most likely place to look—the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK/WP:POVSPLIT. The content is redundant, because it is already included into the JW main article and articles related to JW practices. If there is a disagreement about what to include to the literature list in the main article, it would be a POV fork to start a new article to be in control of what to include. I cannot see a comparability to lists of artists and authors complete work, is of relevance to this discussion, as this is an open topic with an unknown and possible huge number of possible relevant works, rather than a limited list. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have put your finger on the biggest concern, but I think it is fixable if the notability guidelines and manual of style are followed. See my comments on the talk page. If proper selection criteria are identified and adhered to, neutrality should follow. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re removal of appendices from main articles. Particularly in relation to these two edits: [37] & [38]

Can we all agree at least the following points:

All articles need a Bibliography, within the article. This expands the reference detail for the cites used on each page. It would be wrong to make these short-format cites link to a reference off-page.
Any WP articles may have a Further reading section, suggesting texts for a deeper look at the topic. These may either overlap or not with the cited bibliography.
A Further reading section for a narrow article might be rather narrower than the general Bibliography across a broad topic. However such a Further reading section for the broad topic would not differ from a Bibliography for that same broad topic.

Now in this particular case, we have disagreement over the Jehovah's Witnesses main article (and I doubt that agreement is likely to happen over that). I would contend though, despite initially seeing this as a mistake, that Alan Liefting's replacement of the Further reading section with a link to this article [39] was correct.

It left the cited Bibliography intact (It's inlined into the References list here, but could be extracted into its own section)
It removed the bulky Further reading section. That's not a section needed immediately by readers, so following the link is acceptable. The linked section is much bigger, but given that this is the top-level broad-scope article, that's not a problem.

Overall, I would still support the existence of this article, and also its use from the main article, as the main Further reading section within it. Obviously I'd support its linkage from the other articles too, although those narrower articles may still require their own Further reading sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precedent in the Manual of Style for forking out appendices, and no good reason to do so. Where there are other Bibliography pages on other topics, the main article for that topic is not split from the main article, e.g. Fly fishing, India, biology. Bibliography is itself not recommended as a section heading for a list of works within articles; if present, the preferred section heading for a list of works produced by an article's subject is Works or Publications. The preferred section heading for a bibliography about the article subject is Further reading (for additional information), or a subsection of Notes or References (for sources on which the article is primarily drawn). If there is a link to a separate 'Bibliography' article, the proper place for such a link would be the See also section. Refer to various sections of MOS:LAYOUT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this article as a fork, but rather as a justifiable topic for "A reading list on a very broad topic". Once we have it, then it makes sense to link it from elsewhere. It also makes sense (although I agree, this isn't the use that would justify its creation) as a replacement for the Further reading section on the top-level article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much interested in the semantics of fork or split. The appendix should be within the article. If the bibliography page is to be retained, a link to the broader reading list would properly be in the See also section, as stated above, and would not mandate removal of the article's own Further reading section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think hiding the bibliography in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses was a bad idea (see my comments on the talk page, so I have restored it. However, concerns about that article are only relevant in relation to WP:POVSPLIT (see Grrahnbahr's comment above). RockMagnetist (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I hadn't recalled who had hidden the bibliography in that article, but when I checked your link I was unsurprised. I've had considerable problems trying to work with that editor and reaching compromises has often been difficult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally, I like the idea of having bibliographies on Wikipedia, however this could cause problems. First, what to add and what not to add? Let's say it is an articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In this article/bibliography there are questionable tabloid style "works" listed. It thus becomes a medium to publicize articles, "journals," books, etc...that are extremely bias, possibly defamatory, and essentially unreliable. But there really isn't a rule I can think off that would prevent them since they are not "sources." In essence, this sort of article opens the door for some nasty issues. I say Delete into oblivion for this reason. Also, there seems little in Wiki policy in favor of this article.Fordx12 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So should we delete Bibliography sections from articles too? Your issues would apply equally to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a long list of problems related to an article like this. Let's start with the criteria for inclusion: How to determine what works that is related to JW? A lot of books about JW may seek to discuss classification of JW (sect, cult, NRM and so on), and lists books about sects and cults within its reference list. A book about cults is may not NPOV nor correct when it comes to JW, but it still fulfill the requirements for being listed ("each entry be in more than one of the third-party references", from the talk page suggestion). Another problem is the classifications within this article: Pentons book about JW and the third reich is listed under «Persecution in Nazi Germany». It may not is wrong, but it is containing quite harsh criticism to JW policies and JW leadership, esp. Rutherford. Why isn't it listed within the «Critiques and personal accounts»-section? Is it NPOV to classify it at all? These concerns are not even touching the POV-split concern. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a particular source is relevant to two aspects, then list it under both - the second can be a short-form cite, as we already use widely. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a lot of discussion of problems that aren't relevant to a deletion discussion, particularly criteria for inclusion. Selection criteria are discussed in the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists, not Deletion policy. The only way a lack of good selection criteria could be grounds for deletion is if there is good reason to think that they cannot be found for this list. However, no one has really tried to define them yet. Anyone concerned with selection criteria should read about selection criteria and discuss them on the talk page for the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies). We need more historians and scholars participation not less - don't drive them away Category:Bibliographies. Got a problem with certain content take it up on the talk page.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I maintain that the criteria for inclusion in this bibliography are far too ambiguous. However, so long as the page's author desists from deleting (or forking, splitting, or any semantic equivalent) the Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, it may not be necessary to delete the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand what your saying - are you suggesting that compiling the bibliography from articles is forking? I cant comment on what is being moved or deleted as there are no explains here of the problem being described. But - we compile bibs for people (normally the ones we use in articles as they have standing credibility) so they - our readers - can do research be it for Wikipedia or not. They are also usefully in helping expand the encyclopedia itself - for instants for our students at Wikipedia:Canada Education Program we made bibs that link from main articles like Canada#Further reading - History of Canada#Further reading - Military history of Canada#Further reading .... this has lead to the books seen at the individual bibs being used by editors all over Canadian articles to expand the encyclopedia (yes they are all digital copies and can be seen and this helps - this can be done for most bibs). Having all the resources on one pages is the point of a bibliography and leading our readers to it is as valid as any article.Moxy (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier response to the page's creator here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see this before - my apologies. I can see how that could be problematic - odd he did not link the page he just created :-) . However I do see why it may have been done - the page is full of refs already. I see why you/or anyone may be upset at the edit. PS Jehovah's Witnesses was a nice read very informative.Moxy (talk) 07:36, 13 February 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 Symbiosis School of Economics. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dualis[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable monthly newsletter. - Mr X 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Symbiosis School of Economics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:05, 12 February 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. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filmlook[edit]

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

This is a redundant article to Film look. Both articles are about a technique that can be described in a few sentences. Suggest merging into a section in digital cinematography and/or color grading. NickCochrane (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Update As of now, the article has changed in focus and in topic after the AfD nomination. It is now about a non-notable company from Burbank. Say what you will. NickCochrane (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for the change of article focus and topic made by Oakshade after the AfD nomination NickCochrane (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, the dif and the version just before this AfD does stipulate this is about the company Filmlook Inc. in the second sentence and it later even goes on to explain the company's founding. The lede and later content in the article was confusing as to mean the general film look term. I have brought clarification to ensure editors aren't confused as the nom was.--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The basis for this AfD is factually inaccurate. "Film look" is the post-production process of filtering a video image to appear it was sourced from film. "Filmlook" is the name of an actual company in Burbank, California that has long specialized in the film look process and even has registered the word "Filmlook" (not "film look"). This company has had extensive significant coverage over the decades. A couple of examples include The independent film & videomaker's guide, which while you can't see all of it online, gives very in-depth coverage and this one.--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More external sources demonstrating passing WP:NCOMPANY here - [40][41] And a New York Times external source shows this company even won an Emmy Award. [42] --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim the basis for the AfD is inaccurate if you change the entire title and the focus of the article immediately after the AfD nomination. I'm not sure the protocol on this, I respect the right to edit during the AfD, but you have seriously confused editors and the edit you took part in was disruptive to the AfD. NickCochrane (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First article improvement and clarification was "vandalism" and now it's "disruptive"? Have a read of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before you start attacking editors for fixing a problem. This article was about a company and you didn't notice that. You were confused. I clarified this for you and other editors. You're welcome.--Oakshade (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources to show that this company is notable. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. FurrySings (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are the external sources above that show in-depth coverage of this company "no external sources"?--Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shortly after th AfD nomination, the page was vandalized to become a page about some company called "Filmlook". This is an AfD discussion about the technique and as it relations to the other redundant article Film look. NickCochrane (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting clean-up and clarification is vandalism? Say what?? The article was already about the company "Filmlook" and before this AfD started, the Development section began, "In 1986, company founder Robert Faber began researching..." You made an honest error with these AfDs. But attacking other editors making improvements to an article as vandals is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm not quite sure how this company just popped up out of nowhere. Neither the company, nor the technique are notable and need a page. The emmy award should be in an emmy award list somewhere, but the company is just like a thousand other film post production houses. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nick, I have no idea what your intention is? You've opened an AfD for both names, citing them as a duplicate of the other, but then talk about merging them into a different article? Why are they not in the same AfD then? You've reverted a perfectly legitimate edit by Oakshade which cleared up confusion - this article was about the company in the first place. This article should be kept for the company, which appears to be notable from Oakshade's sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs a lot of work and cleaning up, as there is overlap and confusion caused by it - but they aren't, necessarily, one and the same. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to get rid of these two pages that are chalk full with original research, and place a description of it into digital cinematography perhaps. NickCochrane (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'd looked at this article correctly, you'd have realized that it was about the company, not directly about the process - although it did go on to describe how the process worked. The fact is, you can't AfD both as duplications of each other - that's just absurdly confusing. Also, you marked Oakshade's legitimate, good faith edit as vandalism, hence why I undid you revert. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I DID look at this article correctly, and it was AFTER the AfD that the focus was changed to this company. Why don't you LOOK at the evidence yourself. NickCochrane (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lukeno94 is correct. The version just before you put this up for AfD indicated it was about the company Filmlook and even when into the company's founding. [43]. The poorly written lede mislead you, but had you read on, you would've realized it's about the company Filmlook Inc.. The article film look is correctly about the film look process and not about the company. --Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade is correct; if you look at the small magnitude of his edit (which was only to the lead anyway), you would realize that all he did was clear up confusion - and I had already looked at the edit history before I made my comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.NickCochrane (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps he was editing at the very same time I was nominating the article for deletion, it was on my list to do. Regardless, the AfD still stands. NickCochrane (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was always primarily about the company, with an outline on the process included as well (as far back as 2010 in a random diff I looked at). It's never been layed out well, so I'm not surprised you were caught out. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was not editing as the very same time you AfD'd this. According to the article edit history, I didn't make the clarification edit until over two hours after you started this AfD. You were confused of what this article was about, Nick. It's now clarified.--Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it appears that the company is notable. A simple search engine test in Google Books shows results about the company and its founder. Google News is a little more sparse, but I suspect that additional coverage is more likely in industry publications which are not much available online. The article just needs cleanup. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for clarity's sake retitle Filmlook, Inc. as a topic meeting WP:CORP. Now that issues of topic separation have been dealt with and multiple independent sources found, there is not much more to say. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second Michael in that if the article is to remain (however I still question notability), the article should be renamed, and film look remains the primary topic. NickCochrane (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. And toward the Film look article, there are processes other than the one created by Filmlook Inc, and used by other filmmakers and productions companies, to emulate a "film look" to a non-film project. That article will benefit from expansion to cover other film look processes, just as this one on the company will benefit from expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company. Their one award is not significant enough to be notable. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an Emmy and having significant coverage in secondary sources doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY how?--Oakshade (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice awfully similar edit patterns to amazingly identical topics to User:NickCochrane since this account was created on January 19th. Might there be a sock puppet issue here?--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response There may be grounds for notability, and I would change my vote if it could be proven - if the company was the "first" company to use or develop their technique. However the Emmy is not a stand alone measure of notability. As per your claim, I left a response on the Film look AfD. I suggest not making frivolous claims of sockpuppetry, thank you very much. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the "keep" notability assertions here are based on coverage from secondary sources satisfying WP:NOTABILITY. The Emmy is an additional indication of notability. A sock puppet investigation is forthcoming. --Oakshade (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding the socking argument, and assuming you are an unique editor, then LenaLeonard, you're grossly wrong here. Firstly, you've ignored every source presented here. Secondly, a company does not have to be the "first" to do something to be notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could certainly benefit from cleanup, and RSs being embedded, and expansion, but there is enough coverage as has been pointed out to meet our notability requirements.Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Sockpuppet case open regarding User:NickCochrane and User:LenaLeonard at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case has been put on hold by admins, because I am not using a sockpuppet. Also, the AfD is likely going to rule in your favour. NickCochrane (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nick. A Checkuser admin, after performing a checukuser showing strong evidence that LenaLeonard is a sock of you, has put the case on hold pending a decision, not because you "are not using a sockpuppet." --Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this clearly appears to be a notable company and winning an Emmy Award for technical achievements makes it worth mentioning. The article does however need a major cleanup. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest an admin make a decision on this AfD and close it. If Keep, it must be renamed to "Filmlook, Inc." and requires major clean up. NickCochrane (talk) 13:20, 5 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:40, 5 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Research Institute[edit]

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

marketing article. google results are largely press-release driven. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Illinois Institute of Technology. This is unreferenced hornblowing by that school's contract research outfit. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the google news results support WP:N. Many are more than incidental. Although the current article may need to be rewritten for to be less promotional.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maintain as separate article as a distinctly separate think tank institute historically operative in many fields. IIT article is already quite lengthy. Have provided some references noting institute name, and other material, following editing to remove article advertising/puffery bias. Article should be keepable at this point though it does need more work. (T.D. - Los Angeles).--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is still a whole lot of unverified assertions of fact. I note that the Google News responses mentioned upthread are overwhelmingly from the Chicago Tribune, and also that one of the first hits on Google News is an article entitled "Tribune president elected IIT trustee" which could call into question the independence of the tribune as a source and in turn its use to satisfy WP:RS for WP:N. The only mention of IIT in the new york times is a paywalled article from 1965. There is only a single mention of the IIT (excluding obituaries and the similarly named IITs in Annapolis, McLean, and Vienna) in the Washington Post, from 2000, having to do with the Carnivore surveillance system.

I searched for "Armour Research Foundation" too, and got few results other than court cases. This suggests to me that the depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) is not substantial, in turn suggesting that the coverage it deserves on WP should be at best a stub article. The article, however, is quite large, with (as noted) many assertions of fact that are unreferenced. For my part, I am still unconvinced that this satisfies WP:N requirements. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I seem to be finding all sorts of material in numerous fields, including journals and newspapers. The contributions of IITRI and Armour are more substantial than even I thought. Quite profound actually. There are thousands and thousands of papers. Makes you wonder what load of material was done that was classified. Ultimately, Armour could have its own separate article in addition to a very long article on IITRI [this is separate and apart from other activities of the IIT college alone]. So far everything is checking out. The current president item for Tribune was just noted in 11/2012 - - seriously not relevant for all the items historically over many decades. Not everything is yet on the Web.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added more reference material to support article. This really seems to be just a referencing matter. Signigicant profound depth in the literature is readily apparent to this editor. Have spent 20 hours over 2 days now in additional input.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's really fantastic. Is there a way to rescind the nomination? What tags would be most appropriate to place on the article until you get to working this stuff in? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind about the tags, I see that you've substantially edited the article.

I would now say Keep unreservedly. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:30, 9 February 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 speedy delete. G3 - hoax Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Golmen[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:

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

Article only about fiction is not appropriate for wikipedia. FAILS WP:GNG too. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming that this isn't speedied as a blatant and obvious hoax, I'd like to endorse this deletion. It's very obviously a hoax, especially given the claims in the articles about the actresses portraying the Golmens. I mean seriously, Katy Perry wrote a song about them? Two unknown girls were signed to portray characters that weren't even in the books that are suddenly Harry's best friends? Very obvious hoax. (Pasting this onto both AfDS since they're both blatant hoaxes.)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:28, 5 February 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 speedy delete. G3 - Hoax Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Golmen[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:

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

Article only about fiction is not appropriate for wikipedia. FAILS WP:GNG too. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming that this isn't speedied as a blatant and obvious hoax, I'd like to endorse this deletion. It's very obviously a hoax, especially given the claims in the articles about the actresses portraying the Golmens. I mean seriously, Katy Perry wrote a song about them? Two unknown girls were signed to portray characters that weren't even in the books that are suddenly Harry's best friends? Very obvious hoax.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:27, 5 February 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 speedy deleted by User:Yunshui, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anissa Ben Marrou[edit]

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

Fails WP:A7 and WP:BIO. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:04, 5 February 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 Clinical Trial Management System. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EClinical trial technology[edit]

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

buzzword-itis, limited useful information, promotion, notability UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - eClinical is essentially the same concept of Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS). The only difference between the two pages is that the article about eClinical is full of buzzwords. Delete eClinical article or merge the useful and relevant material into Clinical Trial Management System (CTMS). Toffanin (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:32, 6 February 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. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trial management system[edit]

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

Previous references were primary sources, no citations in body, seemingly only pertinent to another AfD nomination, Forte Research Systems. Spam-magnet. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CTMS is a specific field of Content Management, something like CMS solutions but peculiar to the Clinical Research phases. It's worth keeping in Wikipedia. Toffanin (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my feeling, in perusing the literature (mainly pubmed, though perhaps there are better sources?) was that even though this type of software had its own name, it was not particularly distinct from other business management software, and did not have enough references specific to CTMS systems to garner a page of its own. Should we have a separate article for each industry that uses customized software? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like a poor-quality article, so I will try to add stuff in the coming days/weeks. Disclaimer: I did CTMS work for 9 years, so I will know a little bit whereof I speak. I will endeavor to make the article good and avoid the usual traps. So, please grant me a stay of execution and see if this can be redeemed. elpincha (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response this still doesn't get at the core issue of WP:Notability. As I said, coming from a medical background, it isn't apparent to me from the literature that because there is a term for the type of software used in the clinical trials sector, it is somehow substantially different than other custom business software. if your contention is that CTMS is inherently notable, what types of literature are you looking at that give you that impression? I think we can safely say that it isn't the medical literature. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your point here: medical literature would be (by and large) unconcerned with the outcomes expected of a CTMS. Trial management engages physicians in their capacities as investigators, EC/IRB members, bureaucrats, and/or medical monitors. Exceptions to this would be CTMS implementations that touch upon drug dynamics, biologics, etc. which are the minority.

Circling back to my original intent: if we could assume there is a good, comprehensive article (or section) on the management of clinical trials, including the management of feasibility studies, documentation approval, monitoring, subject progress, protocol deviations, etc., one could say we don't really need a separate article on CTMS, which would be just "the software that does that". Maybe we could try that route and make (almost) everybody happy. elpincha (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from submitter -- for the record, i would support a total rewrite and a merge with another article on, say, management software (which article would be most appropriate?). As it stands, though, I am quite skeptical of the need for it to be its own article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially in the US, clinical trials are a specialized world unto themselves; the FDA is a rigorous taskmaster. The associated management software can be fairly specialized. Sources I found:

Except for the Siebel book, these are all peer-reviewed articles in which CTMS is discussed in depth. Peer reviewed articles are generally considered reliable sources, so we have multiple RS that seem to indicated notability of the topic according to general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). The article needs some work to establish sources and to convert to a more encyclopedic style. But these are surmountable problems (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details). The notability of the topic and the surmountable problems of the article suggest that this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:31, 6 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ziron[edit]

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

Unremarkable software; unable to find significant coverage. Contested PROD at WP:REFUND. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another development program *yawn* No sources, no notability, no keep. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Googling failed to turn up anything useful and suggests that the required sources simply do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 03:29, 6 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21Sextury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/21Sextury

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

Non notable, run-of the mill porn production company. Nearly all of its references (including the ones to AVN) are to press releases or company sites. No significant awards won, only a couple of nominations. The only asserted notable director is a redlink. So are a majority of the purported notable actors. This article appears to be an advertisement for the company, an attempt to create, rather than document notability, or both. Search in google, both "web" and "news" yield nothing remotely resembling a reliable source David in DC (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this company exists, it has no coverage and thus fails WP:COMPANY and tone of the article smacks of WP:ADVERT. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 5 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Stegmayer[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who never played in a fully-professional league. Made a single appearance as a substitute in the German cup, but their opponents (Carl Zeiss Jena's reserves) were not in a fully-pro league. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he played first team football for BAYERN MUNICH. What the fuck does it matter who the opponents were? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The reason the opposition matters is twofold. First, it's to avoid the semantics of having a match that would grant notability if it were a league fixture not grant notability in a cup match, second, it stands to reason that the early rounds of a cup competition when non-fully pro clubs are likely play against fully pro ones are not going to receive as much coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not featured in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues or represented his country at senior level. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Again Pet Recovery System[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a seemingly non-notable company. No news or book hits found for this company. A web search only brings up primary or unreliable sources or promotional press releases. Tagged as refimprove since February 2009. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable product without any notability that can be established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:10, 12 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Scott Crew[edit]

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

Possible hoax. According to this site, this entry is a deliberate hoax, which found its way into books afterwards. While I can't verify this (a cursory check of the history of S'more, where this hoax would have probably originated, shows no entries for her before the book was mentioned), it is worrying that there seem to be no pre-2009 sources about this person. So if anyone can check whether it is really included in that 2009 book, and whether there are older sources to verify this (or whether that 2009 book gives any indication of how they found the name of the inventor of the S'mores), it would be really helpful. Post-2009 sources have no value here, since they all repeat either the book, or the Wikipedia claim about the book. Fram (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I love a good mystery: Definitely worth investigating, but that blogpost appears incorrect in one major respect. Unless there is hidden history of an earlier deleted version, the first version of this Wikipedia article was created on 1 July 2009 and already included the reference to the Lilleen book.[44]. Here is a screenshot of what the Lillien book says:[45], it does credit Crew. The Lillien book was released on 14 April 2009. Apparently a 2007 book by Lisa Adams dates its creation at least to 1927 as well[46], but that book does not mention Crew. Certainly a recipe for "Some More" did appear in the 1927 Girl Scouts Book "Tramping and Trailing"[47]. I'll see what else I can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that they meant that they included her name in the Smore's article, not in the Loretta article, but some spot checks couldn't find any mention of Crew before the "deadline" either. Thanks for checking this out anyway! Fram (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking. From some checking, Crew's name and the book reference was added to the S'mores article by an IP editor on 18 June 2009.[48]. A different IP removed the reference on 31 Dec 2009.[49], stating "False statement - Loretta Scott Crew did not create s'mores and it was falsely "cited" as being in the Girl Scout handbook." The first IP then re-added the claim on 11 February 2011.[50]. I did see other attempts to name an inventor in the S'mores history, none of which were sourced.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sleuthing: On 4 Oct 2004, an IP added to S'more that "a young girl named xxxxxxxxx coined this phrase, and this concoction, in 1927 while camping on the banks of the Ohio river on a chilly night."[51]. Suffice it to say this can be verified to be a prank about a real person who is way too young to have been in the Girl Scouts in 1927. In Oct 2005 the claim was removed, per the talk page comment at Talk:S'more#unsourced_claim. However, even today you can google the 2004 claim and find some old blog-type entries which repeat it. It seems likely to me that the blogpost which Fram cites in the nomination is based on this original vandalism, but the facts got confused over years of re-telling. The 2009 Lillien book suggests that the 1927 recipe credits Loretta Scott Crew, but that is wrong. The question is, where did Lillien get this info? I am reaching out to her, but she's a fairly popular writer, we'll see if I can get a response.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've found proof S'mores existed before the 1927 book -- here's a news article from 1925 describing "some mores".[52] The Sept 9, 1925 Norwalk Hour notes that Camp Andree serves "Some-Mores", which "consist of a graham cracker on which is placed a piece of Hershey chocolate, a toasted marshmallow, another piece of chocolate and a graham cracker." More importantly, though "some mores" have been reported on numerous times in news articles from the late 1920s through the 1960s, never as an inventor identified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I'm far beyond most everyone's interest level now, but: The 1927 Tramping guide was published by the Girl Scouts, Inc. out of New York City. Camp Andree is located just north of New York City, and founded in 1921 by the NYC-based parents of Andree Clark (who died at age 16, but her parents learned after her death from her journals of her love for scouting). I see reports that by 1926 the Edith Macy Conference Center next to the Camp was being used to train scout leaders; indeed the 1925 article I cited above shows that "Some mores" were "introduced" as a "Camp Andree dish" to a scout leader training session. (And that was not the first training session.[53].) So it would appear S'mores were probably invented between 1921 and 1925 at Camp Andree. But as to who created then, this 2007 news article has the answer (in a riddle!)[54]. (spoiler: "no one knows").--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 2 different issues at stake here, only the first of which is an AfD issue:

(1) Is Lorreta Scott Crew sufficiently notable to be the subject of a biographical article? As far as I can see from some searching, even assuming the sources are all correct to credit her as the inventor of s'mores, we don't know one single other thing to say about her. No obituary, no interview, no family memoir, nothing. So, whether it's a hoax or not, there's no basis for a separate article. Delete.

(2) Should she be mentioned at S'more? That should be decided through our usual consensus practices. At the moment, I'd lean to including it in some form such as "Some sources credit the invention to a troop leader named Loretta Scott Crew, but further details have not been identified and the basis for this attribution is unclear", citing the Lisa Lillien book and maybe another news and/or official source such as [55]. If clear evidence of a hoax turns up, that could be added instead. The reason I would include her, hoax or not, is that, otherwise, we will see misinformation added over and over to the article. But ultimately that is a matter for the editing process.

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arxiloxos on point 1. There's no basis for notability based on available sourcing. On point 2, every source appears to derive from the 2009 book mention, and that book mention appears to be wrong, as the 1927 book does not credit anyone with the invention. But we can resolve that issue outside this AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:17, 6 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Yuma shooting[edit]

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

per WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm not convinced that every "mass shooting" in the USA is notable, considering that they are so common. This looks to be a local affair, with few or no political consequences Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mass shootings are not at all common as they account for a very small percentage of homicides in the USA. I consider a murder/suicide involving six people to be notable, especially given that the killer was 73 years old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no sustained coverage, as my Google search only ever turned up sources from the first 5 days of June 2011. In addition, the article has been an orphan since 2011 (this isn't a reason to delete, but it is a sign that it's not a hugely notable event) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, its highly unlikely to satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in long run.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think WP:NOTNEWS is an easy way to say delete without having to give real reasons for the decision.. wikipedia is based on news so for me NOTNEWS is a very weird guideline. anyway.. mass shootings are quite rare, here we have a mass shooting with 6 victims.. notable. WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide sources that indicate WP:GNG/WP:PERSISTENCE is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that "It was believed that the gun used in the shooting was a pistol", two years later, indicates that there is no WP:PERSISTENCE here. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, is likely WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:14, 12 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Rhodes[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Her award is a scene award. Only one performer nomination in 2010 (not in the article). Fails the general notability guidelines because the sources listed are either self-published (porn valley news is a blog by a guy named Ray) or not independent of the subject (the FOX layout). Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd tend to agree she fails WP:PORNBIO. AVN gives out so many awards that makes 'Most Outrageous Sex Scene' a fringe consolation prize, as it is pretty meaningless/valueless. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is poorly sourced - relaying in large proportion on a racy interview as well as the subject social networking profiles which are neither reliable not neutral. In view of the lack of WP:N mentioned above the article is unlikely to be improved with better sources for WP's current standards ... BO | Talk 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MT's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has several award nominations including the AVN Female Performer of the Year Award. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By consensus established after extensive discussion scene and ensemble awards do not "count" toward establishing notability for an article here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a single award nomination as an individual. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 10 February 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 Tom Cruise#Relationships and personal life. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Cruise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been deleted twice before, the second time as G4. Since then, nothing new has happened except for an apparent bit part in Red Dawn. Google News has nothing to add besides the usual gossipy stuff--apparently he celebrated his 18th birthday in a night club. That's great, and more than I got, but we're not a tabloid: this is not a notable actor and he does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited, and all we have is the sort of gossipy coverage that the children of celebrities attract like horses attract flies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Milton was right: out of evil (a deletion discussion) good is brought forth: good to see you, Cullen! Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his own notability is yet to be established. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous decision and lack of demonstrated achieved notability of the subject. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing to consider is this. Are we going to delete the page, only to have to create yet another one a few months from now? He's supposedly lined up for a lot more acting projects and is incredibly young. I just see that the next time he books a project someone else will create a new page for him, and we'll be having this discussion yet again.Donmike10 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Cruise#Relationships and personal life until independent notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:19, 12 February 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 List of Internet phenomena#Images . MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy[edit]

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

NOT NOTABLE. Herp Derp (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT - a) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - this is certainly the case here. b) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - the article clearly states "...He says he's trying to lay low. He doesn't want the attention." Ren99 wha? 05:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a burst of coverage in April, 2012, and then. . . . nothing. The subject does not want the attention . Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Images. This is just notable enough to mention in the list of Internet phenomena, but not notable enough for its own entry. Given that the guy in question doesn't want an article about him, I'd recommend that the blurb reads as follows:

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy: A photo that showed a man running a race and looking photogenic. The image became popular after it was posted to Flickr in April 2012.

It doesn't have to be very long or anything, but there's been just enough coverage to where it'd merit a mention. There just hasn't been enough long term coverage to show that he deserves his own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete internet memes are now a dime a dozen. By all accounts, this is not encyclopaedic material and should be expunged forthwith Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Images, as suggested by Tokyogirl, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Images per Tokyogirl. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:20, 12 February 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay African-American pornographic actors[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unnecessary split from List of African-American pornographic actors Funny ^Pika! 03:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also, if ever there was a target for vandalism, oh boy is this it... Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BO | Talk 11:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP catastrophe waiting to happen. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a folk from a list we already have. From my limited understanding of the industry, sexual orientation and the categories of pornography they participate are distinguished as separate. Mkdw ^talk 04:23, 11 February 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ew-too[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem notable at all and barely has any relevant Google results. Failed to find any Google Books or Google Scholar links. The article has had no sources for at least 4 years. EternalFlare (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked for sources repeatedly to no avail. No apparent hope of demonstration of notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It should be possible to combine the information about Elsewhere Too with that of Elsewhere and Foothills, into a single article, as they're basically different versions of the same code. If there are insufficient reliable sources about them or their author Simon Marsh (still trying to locate this[56] one), then perhaps it could be turned into a section of the Talker or even Cheeseplant's House articles. KaVir (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:59, 30 January 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, →B music ian 03:55, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trademob[edit]

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

This AfD exists thanks to Tomaso67, who called its notability into question, leading me to check it out, and find that Tomaso67's doubts seem to be fully jusrified. The article was originally written as an unambiguously promotional piece by a single-purpose conflict of interest account called Trademob. Fortunately, much of the promotional content has now been removed, but it is still somewhat promotional in tone. However, the reason for nominating it for deletion is that the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Of the five references cited, one does not mention Trademob at all, one is on a self-declared PR site, and the others are on marketing/business promotion sites. Searches for coverage also fail to produce evidence of notability. On a Google search, for example, the first page of hits includes www.trademob.com, Wikipedia, CrunchBase (which is an open wiki, largely used by businesses to post promotional pages about themselves), a web-business promotional site called thenextweb, linkedin, twitter. Looking further down the list of Google hits, one finds many pages about Trademob, but on examination almost all of them turn out to be on sites that cannot be regarded as independent reliable sources, as for example a page which looks like a news report, but is posted at http://www.kennet.com/news/press-releases/mobile-mobile-app-marketing-platform-trademob-raises-15-million-in-series-b-funding-led-by-kennet-partners/, which, as the URL suggests, is a press release. The overall impression is that there is a lot about Trademob only because Trademob has put a lot of effort into publicising itself, rather than because reliable independent sources have paid significant attention to it, and the Wikipedia article was clearly part of this effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. My analysis broadly concurs with JBW's. I consider all of the current sources to be basically worthless. The best source I could find is [57], which gives some indication of what Trademob does (besides raise venture capital and write press releases). I think that could be a solid supplementary source, but can't support the article on its own. Kilopi (talk) 04:10, 30 January 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, →B music ian 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom's assessment that the article is still somewhat promotional, and befittingly for a mobile ad company, they really know how to pump out the PR. I found one article that qualifies as an independent source and is in depth: GigaOM article on click fraud. Is GigaOM considered reliable? If so, then this source counts as an RS. But one RS is still below WP:GNG notability guidelines and below WP:CORPDEPTH notability guidelines as well. Unless more reliable sources can be found, I recommend deletion with no prejudice to recreation if more RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 5 February 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 Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Vacanamrtam[edit]

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

Another collection from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. These 34 self-published volumes have only a single independent reference: a throwaway line in a book review on a commentary on Heidegger. No reviews or discussion of the work in academic sources. Not notable. Garamond Lethe 21:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Deleteper as nom. Garamond Lethe 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/redirection - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or merge. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cornelius, it's clear you do not understand Wikipedia very well. In various AFD's several people have tried to explain to you the process and how the site functions off notability policies and guidelines. Your keep votes continuously target the community and never seem to address the concerns regarding WP:NBOOK. You must understand that these AfD may drive some away, they also keep many people interested in the encyclopedia. Without inclusion policies or guidelines to moderate non-notable content this encyclopedia would lose all value and merely become a hosting website for blogs, personal essays, and peoples profiles. The reason the encyclopedia attracts so many readers is largely because it contains useful information to the wide public and removes information not useful or unimportant content. If you feel there is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, the AfD nominations are not the place to raise them nor are they grounds for keeping articles that are not notable. This mindset you have to not learn more about the site and it's pillars are starting to disrupt the process. If you would like a mentor, or further explanation, or help in creating notable articles, all these are available. You're trying to create a world inside one that has been built up by editors for over a decade. Let us help you. Mkdw ^talk 12:20, 4 February 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, →B music ian 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I wish I could vote "keep", but here's the problem: while these books are certainly worth mentioning on Sarkar's entry, the books haven't received a huge amount of commentary in reliable sources. They're mentioned here and there briefly, but not overly so. I do see where they're occasionally cited in various texts like this one, but again- it's really only here and there. I do feel that there might be sources in places that aren't on the Internet, but the problem is that I don't really know if they actually exist or if they'd be usable as reliable sources. Given the absence of these sources to show that the texts are notable outside of their author, the only option we have is to merge what we can and redirect to that section or to the article as a whole. I think what makes it so hard to find sourcing for the books is that they're "just" a collection of Sarkar's speeches. Most of the commentary will be on the speeches and not really about the books specifically as a separate entity from the speeches, if that makes any sense.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that first book you link to isn't independent anyway, since it was written by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti - Sarkar's alias. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here The Times of India, an Indian national newspaper, has published an article, attributed to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti and the book we are discussing here, Ananda Vacanamrtam. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that copy & pasting from the book actually makes it notable, and it's obviously not independent coverage if the author is the same person who wrote Ananda Vacanamrtam, but let's play along for a bit: How do you suggest that somebody who died in 1990 wrote a newspaper article in 2011? bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too. Authors who rise from the dead to re-write primary source material in newspapers is an amazing feat, but it hasn't been worked into the notability guidelines yet. Location (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:After the last evidence I change my vote here.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing from "keep" to "strong keep" without ever providing a reason? bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Tokyogirl. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 16:33, 12 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kho (surname)[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of User:K.b.cheng. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:CIR issues. I'm still on email with him trying to explain to him how to participate in the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: I just want to delete this article, next time maybe would create a new one. K.b.cheng (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xu (surname) because that article covers this topic. _dk (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't redirect to Xu(surname) this article not for redirect, it was stand alone page, next time will create another one. Just want to delete it first. May i know when can delete this Kho(surname) article? Maybe next time i would prepare to use another article title so now was waiting Wikimedia to delete it as fast as possible. K.b.cheng (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadkid dk, your assessment is incorrect. There is a substantive difference between Xǔ （许） and Xú （徐） in Chinese. That the characters in the two pages look completely different should be a dead giveaway (pun intended). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down, you'll see that 許 is right beneath 徐. I don't have any misgivings about a new article covering 許 exclusively, but for now this page (Kho) will have to be a redirect. _dk (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my point is that they need to be two separate articles because they are two separate characters. A redirect is a bad option. The content at the Xu (surname) that applies to 许 should be moved over to Kho (surname). Sven Manguard Wha? 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be moved, it should not be to a non-standard romanization. A similar situation at Li (surname) led to the creation of surname articles like Li (李), Li (黎), Li (利), etc. I suggest we follow that precedent. _dk (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes there is a very substantive difference between the surnames Xǔ （许） and Xú （徐） in Mandarin Chinese, and Cantonese etc, Korean, Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 4 February 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, →B music ian 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it technically failed a G7, given the page history and lack go good options for a redirect; since the primary editor requests deletion, I would support it. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xu (surname) per Deadkid dk, because it's clearly redundant as a regional phonetic variation of a standard name. This can be a redirect, but should not be a standalone article. If it's felt that Xǔ (许） and Xú （徐) need to be disambiguated, then create another article. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:42, 5 February 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, default to keep. My reading of the debate below is that every attempt to invoke policy in the debate, whichever way the policy points, has been refuted. There is a split vote, and I can't see this discussion getting unstuck anytime soon, so I'm closing this as NC. Der yck C. 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with surname Jones[edit]

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob and other precedents listed there, there is a consensus that lists of people sharing name are not useful when there are very many notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a precedent for deleting a list of people with the same surname, on the "list too long" theory or otherwise? Whatever one may think of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob, I would anticipate (and maybe agree with) the argument that a surname-based list is potentially more helpful to navigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked, but did not find one. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slight difference between lists of people that share a common forename and one that shares a common surname. Especially given that Jones is one of the most common Welsh surnames out there. This list is an extension of the Jones (surname) page. Most surname pages are in a sense disambiguation pages, and list a number of notable people who share that name. ~~So if anything this page should be Merged with it.~~ Funny ^Pika! 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the page looks far too long to merge together. Looking through this category Category:Lists of people sharing a surname there's quite a few lists of surnames. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for inclusion, I'd still say the list should be kept in some form like Arxiloxos states - as a means of searching for articles on people named Jones. Possibly by breaking down each section into separate pages based on occupation?

Previous attempts at consensus is listed here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Funny ^Pika! 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the page was created by splitting it from Jones (surname). I am glad that you do not want to merge it, and I would certainly oppose re-merging. As for the others in Category:Lists of people sharing a surname, I would advocate deleting others that are too long to merge back into the surname page, such as List of people with surname Johnson and List of people with surname Williams. Pages in it that are regular surname pages (anthroponymy articles), which include a list of notable examples anyway, do not need to be in that category; I intend to prune it, but will defer that until after this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is useful, for example someone looking for a singer called Jones but not sure of the first name. When pages get too long they need to be broken up, which is presumably why it got split off from Jones (surname). It is over 500 lines long already, which is probably unmanageable for someone trying to navigate it on a mobile phone. I would oppose deletion but splitting it into different categories as FunnyPika suggested is the best solution I can think of. Jll (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would merge the "See also" section (listing Alan Jones (disambiguation) etc) back into Jones (surname), but as for the biography articles, I have added a link for All pages including "Jones" in the title and IMHO that is enough.
- If I wanted to look for a singer named Jones, without this list, I would simply search Wikipedia for singer jones; this first brings up Joneses that have "(singer)" in the page name, then redirects, and after those it shows others that have the word "singer" in the article.
- Wikipedia has a policy page which says Wikipedia is not a directory. As a matter of policy I think this page should go. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[58]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it is not a (proper) disambiguation page; see MOS:DABNAME. It is clearly a directory.
    - Moreover, it is a very incomplete directory, and the potential contents are so large that I think it would be unmanageable to try to finish it. Special:Search/intitle:Jones gives over 4,300 pages. Doing the same search for jones singer and jones musician gives 24 + 43 = 67 pages, but only 12 of those 67 are currently in the 50 or so currently listed under Music.
    - If people want to keep directories like this, then start a discussion at WP:NOT. Meanwhile, WP:ILIKEIT is not a good argument. The task of the participants at AfD, especially the person who closes, is to implement Wikipedia policy. If we delete this and later on the policy does get changed, the page could always be undeleted and then split, expanded or otherwise improved. However, it seems to me that WP:NOTDIR is a clear and strong line in WP policy. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be a directory, but as are most lists that Wikipedia encompasses. For me, inappropriate directories in Wikipedia are those that just list schedules or point to an external link (List of breweries in South Carolina). Here the list is pointing to a page on Wikipedia and could help users find articles on people named Jones.

WP:NOTFINISHED is an equally poor argument. Most pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, but that does not mean we should delete every unfinished page. Yes, the list is extremely large and borderline indiscriminate. Yet I don't understand why your suggestion that it could be "split, expanded or otherwise improved" cannot be done prior to deletion rather than after, as per WP:NCLL. Funny ^Pika! 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about List of breweries in South Carolina, as none of the contents have Wikipedia articles, so I have proposed it for deletion.

My argument about this Jones list is that it should only be kept at all if Wikipedia policy is changed. Although I sometimes work myself on a page during an AfD to see if it can be rescued, I would not encourage editors to do extensive work on a page which I believe does not belong here at all under the present framework. WP:NCLL is about breaking up pages that are justifiable and should be useful when complete; I do not believe those apply here. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well something useful happened today -- another editor has rescued that list of breweries! The whole list is now supported with an external citation. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is well structured so that the contents index guides the reader well. There may be a better way of doing this but, per WP:PRESERVE, we should keep the blue link and edit history as a foundation. Deletion would just be disruption. Warden (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is a good one, and I normally give it a lot of weight. However, because this is (i) so incomplete and (ii) practically impossible to complete and maintain, I do not think it is desirable to encourage further work on it. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite complete to me. For example, off the top of my head I think of three famous Jones: Tom Jones (singer); John Paul Jones and Jones the cat. I find that they are all in the list and so we're good. Warden (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the problem: it consists of the most famous people and some editors' favourites. If it was complete, it would list about 4,000 existing articles. See the stats I added earlier today: only 12 of 67 pages that include Jones as well as either singer or musician in their page name are listed.

Lists are not required to be exhaustive and complete. That's why we have the template ((dynamic list)) which states "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.". Lists such as list of numbers are provably infinite. Lists such as list of rivers tail off into inummerable minor streams and creeks. It is quite normal, natural and expected that we should concentrate upon the more famous cases. Warden (talk) 07:46, 6 February 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, →B music ian 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST; "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." - we're gonna need proof that everyone named "John" is equally reliable per sourcing in order to attest they belong as a member of the list. So solly Ren99 wha? 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — that is not a problem, just a matter of work through drawing over a citation from each of the articles supporting the person being so named ... assuming that a biographical article actually has a citation supporting the person's name in association with the identity of the person being described. I would be interested to know if you have examples where this assumption is incorrect; such examples should be deleted ASAP, I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jones. To have such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of people who just happen to share the same, very common, surname. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jones. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -looking at Wikipedia is not a directory it states "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" and clearly none of the folks in this list are famous because of their surname. I'm not seeing any rationales for keeping being presented other than I like it. J04n(talk page) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its use as a navigational page was presented as a valid argument. As was the statement: long lists are indiscriminate directories. The proposal is for users who want to search for people based on a surname and an occupation to be able to find a list that points to an article for that person. The searchbox in this case would be more indiscriminate, displaying a random list of people named foo in no particular order. The article is possibly salvageable if split, so I believe there's a format problem here rather than a content one.

In reference to WP:NLIST, I don't think anyone here is debating whether foo belongs in said list. If you really want to go down that route you'd just have to prove WP:V (or WP:N), something all biographical articles should meet. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue in reference to whether people named Jones should be included in lists of Joneses. Funny ^Pika! 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. There's nothing in WP:NOTDIR which is relevant. It does not forbid long lists and we have many such, e.g. the humunguous list of minor planets. Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I almost presented a "keep" argument, saying that we should ignore the letter of the rules here, and that this list is inherently useful. However, I could not find an instance where the search box would be any less useful than this list. If you know a person's last name and what they are notable for, using Google and/or the Wikipedia search function will take you to their page. I don't see any reasonable use for this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I put "jones cat" into the search box, thinking of the character in Alien (film) then I get zillions of false hits such as Doctor Jones because the word cat is used in a technical sense. I am an expert in searching for things and it isn't easy. What you need are multiple approaches and tools. Depending upon a single tool is unwise. Deleting a useful index just because you can is disruption. How is such deletion supposed to help the encyclopedia or our readership? Deletion just seems purely obstructive and unhelpful. Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what wiki is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about anything but you provide no evidence. The actual evidence is that Wikipedia has many such lists:

List of people with the surname Abney

List of people with the surname Beaman

List of people with surname Clarke

...

List of people with surname Vogler

List of people with surname Williams

See Category:Lists of people sharing a surname for many more examples. Why should we discriminate against the Jones? Warden (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion they should be deleted also. I'm not nominating them at this time however it would probably be a good idea. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some in that category should be removed from it, others merged/converted into surname articles, others deleted; see my comments above timed at 14:21, 30 January 2013. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a subpage of the main disambiguation and surname pages, and like disambiguation pages it's a list for navigation purposes not a list as a presentation of encyclopedic content. It's no more a directory than any disambiguation page or set index. Peter James (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of arguing for deletion of these things one by one, why not find a broader discussion somewhere, and determine if Wikipedia should have these sorts of list or not? Category:Lists of people sharing a surname has 163 entries. This list aid in navigation. You search for the last name of someone, you can then see which person it is you are looking for. You could call it a disambiguate page instead of a list if you wanted to. That is what it is after all. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jones (surname). Generally speaking, that's how lists of people by last name are covered p b p 14:51, 6 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jonathan[edit]

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

Appears to be notably non-notable. Paucity of RS coverage. There is a good reason it is missing from the article itself. Tagged for notability for a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to find any coverage under his stage name and real name, there is really nothing outside of his own site or youtube that I can find, shame, have to conclude not notable ---- _nonsense ferret 03:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is interesting enough that I wanted to find some reliable sources showing notability. I couldn't. Not everyone with an interesting story is notable by Wikipedia standards, alas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find coverage in English or German under either his stage name or his birth name. He does not have an article at the German Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 6 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations[edit]

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

Contested prod [59] However, no evidence of notability has been found. It appears to be a self-published history book. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). maclean (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-published book that does not meet notability criteria. SchreiberBike (talk) 1:15 am, Today (UTC−6)

The book History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations by writer Tome Egumenoski and historian Aleksandar Donski is a book that definately contains evidence of notability, it was advertised in the Australian Macedonian Weekly Newspaper in May, 2012 a few months after it was published--William H. Nault (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC) The book also looks at the origin of the Slavs, evidence of notability can also be found on the very first pages where it states the origin of the Macedonian Slavs before their migrations, it also looks at the Slavs of Croatia.--William H. Nault (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Nault, deleting other people's comments in a discussion is extremely bad form in Wikipedia. Assuming you did so accidentally, please be careful not to do so again.

Regarding the book, please read the This page in a nutshell section at the beginning of Wikipedia:Notability (books) and explain how based on Wikipedia standards the book meets those standards. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The title looks like a description of archaeological science, but it appears to be a work only on the archaeology of the Balkans, which is not what the title implies. I think that being reviewed in notable periodicals might make it notable, merely being advertised in the newsletter of an ethnic community does not provide that. Whether the content of the book is reliable or heavily POV is a differnet question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 11 February 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 Lough Neagh#Uses. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh Rescue[edit]

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

Non notable organisation, there are no sources to provide any evidence of notability. The article seems to exist just to provide an ongoing edit war to two different sites about the lifeboat. Martin451 (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lough Neagh#Uses. I'm not sure if there's enough in-depth coverage out there. Most of the sources I found were passing references to their rescue work. Funny ^Pika! 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism caused by a Paul Duffy who gained access to an old .co.uk website that had been hacked. It may be better deleted..Paddy P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.141.108 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 February 2013‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find that the arguments for keep are stronger than the opposes. The major oppose arguments are that there are few sources (which would be a good one) and that this is a stub (a poor one). A stub is an article that isn't fully developed yet; even if it's a "perma-stub." The argument that there are no sources would be a good one, but Hullaballoo and Warden point out that there may be sources that are not neccessarily available online. We delete because sources do not exist, not because they do not exist online. Consensus leans keep despite split !votes. v/r - T P 18:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Meugniot[edit]

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

Prodded with " Found only name-drops in association with shows he's worked on. No source I found in Google Books or News had even one iota of biographical information". Deprodded for "significant coverage of work, and better searching will turn up bio info". I searched again and again, and could not find ANY sources about him, just his works. Notability is not inherited from notable works. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First, the nominate has simply fabricated an essential piece of the deletion rationale; it is absolutely false to say that "Notability is not inherited from notable works". WP:NOTINHERIT makes it explicit that the principle cited is "not always the case", and cites various of the creative arts as areas where it does not hold. WP:N and related pages note repeatedly, in various ways, that creators of notable work are generally notable "without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources"[60]; indeed. the typical way for establishing notability for creative folks is to show that they created or participated in notable works (WP:ENT, WP:AUTHOR). Second, the nominator ignores the well-established consensus for articles on professionals in the comics and animation fields, demonstrable through hundreds and hundreds of articles in the relevant categories, that documentation of the subject's work is adequate to sustain an article. Many articles may be in more narrative a structure than this one, but simply converting a list of credits into a narrative chronology is a difference in form, not substance. (Indeed, the nominator has created a great many articles on musicians which merely recite their notable work (eg, Jay Joyce)). Third, the nom's report that he can only find "name-drops" regarding the subject somehow misses the fact that the subject is listed as receiving two Daytime Emmy nominations [61] (not quite so bad a miss as the time that the nom's diligent searching somehow missed an Oscar nomination in assessing notability, but still showing how ineffective his searching is) and somehow overlooks the fact that the subject has directed multiple notable full-length animated releases, which have been independently reviewed (eg, Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight. And, although the nom claims to have checked out Google Books listings, it's easy enough to find listings there for print coverage in the comics trade press (eg, Comics Interview 2, April 1983 [62]. A ridiculous nomination that should be dismissed without delay. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not helpful in determining consensus.--v/r - T P 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I love how after all this time, you still have the biggest vendetta against me. Nothing that you've cited is biographical, and at least the Jay Joyce article has some meat to it. This is just a one-sentence stub that says nothing on the guy except that he exists. Where's the notability? Nothing you've stated is a real assertation except maybe the awards. And not 100% of award winners are inherently notable. Not anyone who created a show is notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] We get it. You reject consensus, guideline, and practice and post uncivil rants against people who disagree with you, especially when they point out you have "a history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes or seconds."([63], #10). Now could you please return to civility, as difficult as you seem to find that here, and actually address the substantive issues? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Only when you stop screaming "speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot" at every AFD I start. You are being no less incivil than I right now, not to mention outright lying by saying that I "reject consensus, guideline". Where have I rejected consensus here? Several other creators have been deleted despite making notable works — for instance, Andy Berman, who created Psych, had been deleted in the past for a lack of sourcing. And the current form has no sourcing of its own either, just IMDb and another wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] That is a flagrant personal attack, and merits sanction. I set out the substantive analysis above, and you've refused to respond to it. If anyone here can be characterized as "outright lying" it would be you, since you know perfectly well, amd everyone here can plainly see that I'm not "screaming 'speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot' at every AFD [you] start." You're an experienced, adult editor who shouldn't behave like a tantrum-tossing twelve-year-old when you are caught screwing up. If you keep refusing to respond to substance and instead keep heaving piles of personally directed invective, you shouldn't be surprised if an admin decides to force silence upon you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Again: How is what I'm doing any less wrong than your constant wiki-stalking and "speedy keep" at every damn AFD I make? You make so much noise about how I should be blocked for my offenses, but we've beaten that horse into dust ages ago. Clearly if I were a problem, there would have been a consensus to block me years ago. And yet I'm still here. Hmm, maybe that means I'm not doing anything "wrong" enough to warrant a block? Ever think of that? Of course not. You're so insistent on spamming all my AFDs with "Speedy keep" because you disagree with how I interpret policies and guidelines, and you think that I suck at finding references. As if the ones you found were any better. And you know what? Screw it. We've gotten way too far off topic here, and I'd much rather see other people discuss whether or not this guy is notable, instead of you continuing to eviscerate me for the same problems ad nauseam. Please, for the love of God, drop the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Stop saying things that aren't true; you're deliberately disrupting the process here with accusations you know are false, and have made up for no apparent reason other than childish pique because you've been caught screwing up. You know perfectly well that I haven't been "wikistalking" you or opposing all your afds. It's becoming very hard to avoid the conclusion that you're being deliberately dishonest. Especially since you still won't respond in good faith on any of the substantive points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not helpful in determining consensus.--v/r - T P 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I love how after all this time, you still have the biggest vendetta against me. Nothing that you've cited is biographical, and at least the Jay Joyce article has some meat to it. This is just a one-sentence stub that says nothing on the guy except that he exists. Where's the notability? Nothing you've stated is a real assertation except maybe the awards. And not 100% of award winners are inherently notable. Not anyone who created a show is notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We get it. You reject consensus, guideline, and practice and post uncivil rants against people who disagree with you, especially when they point out you have "a history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes or seconds."([63], #10). Now could you please return to civility, as difficult as you seem to find that here, and actually address the substantive issues? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only when you stop screaming "speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot" at every AFD I start. You are being no less incivil than I right now, not to mention outright lying by saying that I "reject consensus, guideline". Where have I rejected consensus here? Several other creators have been deleted despite making notable works — for instance, Andy Berman, who created Psych, had been deleted in the past for a lack of sourcing. And the current form has no sourcing of its own either, just IMDb and another wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a flagrant personal attack, and merits sanction. I set out the substantive analysis above, and you've refused to respond to it. If anyone here can be characterized as "outright lying" it would be you, since you know perfectly well, amd everyone here can plainly see that I'm not "screaming 'speedy keep, Hammer's a goddamn idiot' at every AFD [you] start." You're an experienced, adult editor who shouldn't behave like a tantrum-tossing twelve-year-old when you are caught screwing up. If you keep refusing to respond to substance and instead keep heaving piles of personally directed invective, you shouldn't be surprised if an admin decides to force silence upon you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again: How is what I'm doing any less wrong than your constant wiki-stalking and "speedy keep" at every damn AFD I make? You make so much noise about how I should be blocked for my offenses, but we've beaten that horse into dust ages ago. Clearly if I were a problem, there would have been a consensus to block me years ago. And yet I'm still here. Hmm, maybe that means I'm not doing anything "wrong" enough to warrant a block? Ever think of that? Of course not. You're so insistent on spamming all my AFDs with "Speedy keep" because you disagree with how I interpret policies and guidelines, and you think that I suck at finding references. As if the ones you found were any better. And you know what? Screw it. We've gotten way too far off topic here, and I'd much rather see other people discuss whether or not this guy is notable, instead of you continuing to eviscerate me for the same problems ad nauseam. Please, for the love of God, drop the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying things that aren't true; you're deliberately disrupting the process here with accusations you know are false, and have made up for no apparent reason other than childish pique because you've been caught screwing up. You know perfectly well that I haven't been "wikistalking" you or opposing all your afds. It's becoming very hard to avoid the conclusion that you're being deliberately dishonest. Especially since you still won't respond in good faith on any of the substantive points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is one sentence, and unsourced. The guy probably exists, but sources are needed to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look at that, someone else !voted "Delete". Why, I must be the most disruptive freaking person in all of AFD history. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't drag me into your personal dispute. I just voted based on policy. Howicus (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, creative professionals are determined notable by their works. The nominator's personal opinion doesn't not cancel out the subject specific guideline WP:ENTERTAINER which says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He is the co-creator and artist of one notable work, and has directed notable films and television shows. Dream Focus 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because you're invovled with something notable doesn't automatically make you notable, otherwise we'd have an article for every single person listed in the credits of Jaws. HoldenPhoebeDB&Allie (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone, just the directors, major actors, writers, etc. See Wikipedia:DIRECTOR and Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fairly prolific and well-known. Appears in the reference work Cartoonists, Works, And Characters in the United States alongside Mike Mignola and Frank Miller, for example. Warden (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which, unless I'm mistaken, gave nothing but his name. Do you really expect an entire article to hinge on a directory listing verifying literally nothing but that he's a person? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a bibliography which tells us that the subject has been written about and provides references to more sources. This is enough to confirm notability. If we don't have many confirmed facts to report yet then we just have a short article and that is not a problem requiring deletion. Warden (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know what's in it, add it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 2 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. For such an unusual name, I would have expected a torrent of news entries upon Gsearch. Instead I see two. There are a few other general hits, but none of these leap out to me that this person is a notable artist. Just because his name appears in a directory doesn't mean he deserves a WP entry. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you discount the search results that show he was twice nominated for Emmy Awards and has directed multiple films/TV shows receiving independent reviews, thereby squarely qualifying under WP:ENT? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The director of notable films is notable. What on earth could possibly make a director notable otherwise? It's not the routine facts of his bio or education, which are useful information, but what is important about him is what heis professional work consists of. (It's not quite this simple, because someone who had directed two barely notable films and nothing else, would rightly be considered far too borderline, and we would rightly delete it. But looking at the articles for what he has directed, there are 3 clearly notable films or series, and work asa producer on others.) Inherited means inherited downwards; the correct use of the rule is to say, although we have decided he is notable, anything he may direct might or might not be notable, but cannot be assumed to be--for that to be true, he'd have to be considered famous, which he is not. I think the nom must know this, for its come up hundreds of times, and always means it this way. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't know a scrap of biographical information? Isn't that counter to WP:BLP? I still see nothing but directory listings of works he was involved in. What I don't see is anything of substance. Just "Will Meugniot did this, this, and this." Where's the biographical info? Is that not a set in stone requirement of WP:BLP? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. I just looked though WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources, and see nothing of the sort. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced per WP:V; WP:BLP adds "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It does not say "include biographical information in the article or delete it"; the age of the article precludes WP:BLPPROD. If WP:NPEOPLE is met, that is sufficent for this article, so the discussion needs to be based on that, not WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general requirement of in-depth coverage in WP:GNG, which is not met here, largely derives from the desire to have sufficient reliable sources to avoid inappropriate WP:UNDUE weight and thus honor WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Some of our special notability guidelines carefully carve out, largely correctly, alternative guidelines which work well in specific fields--things like the named chair provision of WP:ACADEMIC and as here, some provisions of WP:ENT. While I'm often dubious of claims of the significance of roles and/or movie works which themselves lack much in the way of coverage, the daytime Emmy nominations (and any independent reviews of his works, as noted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above) each independently would to my mind "hit the bar". Are we relying on horrible sources to show that? I don't think so, even if the sourcing here looks weak overall. Are the nominations verifiable? I presume so. Is the resulting article horribly non-neutral? I doubt it. So, why not? --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a freaking permastub that says nothing about the guy, just his works? Why can't anyone get that through their head? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it needs anything more? Some read Wikipedia articles to find out what someone accomplished in their life, not where they were born, went to school, or other irrelevant nonsense. And it can be expanded, just click the link in the article to his official website and click biography if you wanted to find out more information about the guy. [64] See how easy that is? Does Wikipedia benefit in any possible way by deleting this article? Dream Focus 02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We benefit from not having a "biography" that's actually 100% list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully intended to !vote keep based on the awards section but on closer inspection I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that the 'International Monitor Award' is a major award and the snipit used to verify his Daytime Emmys doesn't tell me anything. Meeting one or more criteria of WP:DIRECTOR or any other subject-specific guidelines does not guarantee that a subject is notable. J04n(talk page) 12:39, 13 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maduekwe[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete - Google News found an article but it was dead so I was able to recover here at archive.org and Google Books found two results from the 1990s which prove he existed. The archive.org article supports his work with Total Aluminum and, if it was founded in 1997, that means it happened after Nigerian Railway Corporation. Unfortunately, the first link only mentions him briefly and is not sufficient for notability and the two Google Books results don't provide much through the previews. Searches at Nigerian newspapers The Sun, Vanguard, Daily Times, Business Day and The Guardian provided nothing. It saddens me to see the article has never been significantly or even slightly improved since the beginning, at least something about his current career. I'm willing to reconsider if other sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 2 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:34, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasita Samgraha[edit]

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

Another 25 volumes from the prolific Sarkar. The single independent source cited is a self-published ebook that mentions the collection only in passing. No academic coverage, no popular reviews, and no notability. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar bibliography article, but I think the best solution here is a simple delete.

As always: while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study. Garamond Lethe 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom.

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My bad – thanks for pointing that out. Garamond Lethe 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. There's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. Hence, I offer a proforma response to Garamond's proforma nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 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, Mkdw ^talk 02:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion so far have been pleads with the community (copy & pasted across multiple AfDs) that are not AfD discussion regarding the article or policies. Re-listed for direct AfD discussion. Mkdw ^talk 02:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation: Sorry for not giving this AfD nomination. I've been coping with a lot of non-WP work in addition to the onslaught of AfDs on Sarkar-related articles (I believe there are 9 concurrent AfDs from this nominator alone). Regarding the nominator's claim that there is no academic coverage, that is not correct. Academic coverage is even cited in the article itself (vide Kang: Sarkar and the Buddha's Four Noble Truths). As may be seen here, this serious academic article also appears in the journal "Philosophy East & West" Volume 61 Number 2 April 2011 303-323, published by the University of Hawaii Press. There is a much larger document by Kang - his PhD thesis - that I will try to secure a copy of by writing to him. In all likelihood, this doctoral thesis will have more references to the Subhasita Samgraha series. --Abhidevananda (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations (still) don't count towards notability. Garamond Lethe

*Editor's note: Garamond your atempt to delete all articles related with Shrii P. R. Sarkar continues also when academic coverage is evident.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there may be a handful of tenuous google hits, and some coverage from other points within the Sarkarverse, but without indepth discussion by independent sources, it fails our notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For this to be notable, this collection of his essays as such would need being notable, not merely the content which he expresses there and elsewhere. I have been from the first a supporter of full coverage of fringe subjects, for where else can people expect to find reliable information but a comprehensive encyclopedia such as ours? But this is excessive detail, and does not warrant a separate article. My advice to the supporters of the articles on him is tat they themselves try to combine articles and remove the least important. A few stronger articles is always better. GTrying to get too many gives the impression of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. I agree that significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article. The assertion has been made that this exists, but I don't see it. Location (talk) 16:23, 12 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to sockpuppetry involved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Johns[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP created before March 18, 2010. Subject fails WP:NMMA, with one fight for Shooto and other for the UFC. LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:NMMA and the only source is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. GladiusHellfire (talk) 04:09, 12 February 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. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in London[edit]

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

This looks as if it should be at WikiVoyage. The economics are already better covered on the London page and everything else is opinion or guide and directory material failing WP:NOT. The subject can be adequately covered on the London page without this fork which acts as a coatrack for directory material. Charles (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not against the article in theory, but the risk of coat-racking is high. Can this be transwikied while not harming this project? Bearian (talk) 18:45, 4 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We must always keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. According to policy, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is obviously notable, considering it represents ~~half~~ 10% of the business revenue of the city. Take out the tourist guide stuff and put in some historical information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiVoyage or delete. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. JIP | Talk 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OMG, if this was an article for a company, I'd have it deleted for being WP:SPAM or WP:HOWTO. If there's a place in Wikisphere, it's at Wikivoyage, not here. Indeed the topic should be a notable one, but little of the content is relevant to our context, and we may as well start again from scratch. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Keep as amended by Oakshade. I agree that the present article content is really for Wikivoyage. But WP does have other similarly titled articles such as Tourism in New York City and Kitfoxxe makes the point that the subject is undoubtedly notable in WP terms. There are plenty of sources for a good article just on the history of London tourism, let alone the current tourist industry. There does not seem anything worthwhile to merge with the Wikivoyage article, so not so much a case of transwiki as blowing up and starting again. In the meantime, a redirect without prejudice to recreation with clear demarkation between this and Wikivoyage, unless there is a volunteer to take it on now (not me, I live in another tourist city which needs better coverage). --AJHingston (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tourism in London is a multi-billion pound business and is definitely a notable topic in itself. Unfortunately this article is written like a travel guild. It needs re-working. That's not a reason for deletion in itself. How the tourist business developed over the years, how it increased (and decreased [65]) over time is what's needed. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article bluntly violates WP:NOTTRAVEL right now. Deleting, redirecting/merging, or keeping this won't make much of a difference since the article needs to literally be rewritten from scratch to meet Wikipedia standards and guidelines, so overhauling an existing article won't be easier than creating a new one. Deleting this without prejudice against recreation might be better than keeping it in hopes that someone will fix it, which will not happen overnight nor will be completed in a quick fashion, but hey, if someone can do that before the AfD closes, I am willing to change my vote. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - If there's no objection, I'm going to delete most of the travel guide-esque content of this article and preserve just the intro and the "Economics of tourism in London" section. That way it can be a stub that editors can properly grow from in the perspective of the tourism business and impacts. -- Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Done. --Oakshade (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but heavily prune -- An article with this title should exist, but the travel guide material belongs in wikivoyage. Oakshade has got it about right. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well established type of article here, including the travel highlights. Perhaps we should reconsider the type of content in such articles now that we have wikivoyage, but I think their coverage on this would become much more encompassing than this, and this is a summary appropriate for WP. And in any case, the content that Oakshade highlights is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune. I've little doubt that the general topic of tourism in London is a topic which can be encyclopedic (size of the tourist trade, related tourism growth organizations and governmental efforts, perhaps a short sourced list of most popular destinations). There is a place here for both Wikipedia *and* Wikivoyage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 13 February 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kowalski[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for wikipedia. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets our longstanding notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Manitoba legislature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Keep, meets WP:POLITICIAN, elected twice, even quarrelled with party leadership for a short period. I suggest the nominator withdraw this one. PK T(alk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, also lacks alot of sources. I googled his name and found nothing, so yeah, not notable. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding the word Manitoba to your Google searches, IronKnuckle, and you will see coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are now three solid references in the article, including two I added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned by the first two: The article clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Article deletion would be uncalled for as stated in the guideline, should consensus be away from keep redirecting to their group or one of the elections suffices. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close WP:POLITICIAN clearly states "provincial legislature". The Canadian political system is perhaps little difficult to understand but MLA's are essentially the equivalent of the US House of Representatives (Governors and Senators). Mkdw ^talk 01:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more accurately, members of a state legislature (also a position that's notable enough to constitute an automatic keep.) Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Member of the provincial legislature. We're done. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper sourcing is, of course, always needed on Wikipedia — but as already noted, members of a provincial legislature in Canada (and members of a state legislature in the US) are always notable enough for inclusion whether you think their own individual record of accomplishment constituted something uniquely notable or not. And the sourcing has been improved since nomination, and can quite easily be still further improved — we are not limited to web-published content for referencing, but can dig into print-only content as well, so one person's failure to find referencing that's specifically available via Google does not override WP:POLITICIAN. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Just another transparently futile nomination from a recently arrived SPA with an agenda conflicting with the article subject's politics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 9 February 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EFans (website)[edit]

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

Despite the multitude of sources, this website appears non-notable. The sources are a collection of blogs and forum posts, plus one regurgiated press release. There's no significant coverage in truly reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So immensely WP:OVERLINK-ed that we have to deal with that first. Looking at the article I'm not seeing any stubstantial claim to to it's notability. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail our web guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert. Also a copy of a declined article at WP:AFC, so may come under A10. Mdann52 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no news, books or reliable sources turn up in a search, current list of sources all looks unreliable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:15, 6 February 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. Wizardman 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles Madsen[edit]

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

The reference in the article doesn't contain significant coverage of the subject (as in, there isn't a significant amount of text about him, just a directory listing). I can't find any other sources online that pass WP:RS, so I think the subject fails WP:BASIC. I'm not aware of a subject-specific notability guideline for professional wrestling, but he doesn't seem to have done anything especially notable, and a comparison to WP:NMMA also suggests non-notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 22 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert C. Green

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Factface (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)— Factface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 02:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article makes claims that seem to satisfy wp:academics, like having made key contributions in his field. Is your argument that those claims aren't justified/backed by fact? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ - I have two issues with the page: 1) The subject is an active researcher, but I could not identify major contributions to the field of genetics. 2) The page is exclusively written by the subject's staff, and has not been updated.Factface (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)— Factface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 22 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't seem to clearly meet any of the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. He is quite well-cited on Google Scholar, but a lot of those papers have several authors, and he's in a field where having a lot of citations is common. Claims that he's innovative or important in his field aren't properly supported by evidence. I don't see in depth press coverage. And he doesn't have a full professorship, professional position, awards, or fellowships such as would justify notability. If there was clearer evidence about the importance of his contribution to science, or greater coverage of his work (e.g. in mainstream media articles), I would reconsider, but he seems a run of the mill researcher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar h-index of 42, which is very high, regardless of high-citation level of field. If we restrict to articles where he is first author, that is still a h-index of 20 or so, which I think is a very good argument for passing WP:PROF#C1. Otherwise, the fact that he is cited as a key researcher in New York Times articles in explaining various facets of Alzheimer's research contributes strongly to a pass of WP:PROF#C7, given the importance of Alzheimer's disease to the population at large. Ray^Talk 04:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A first author h-index of 20 is pretty common, especially for an established academic of 21 years. Almost all HMS faculty have at least that h-index, and it does not make them notable. I also think the claims in the article are unsubstantiated by the citations. The article reads as a puff bio by a colleague or employee (whose username is from his institution, BWH.) If it is not deleted it should be restructured. Medicine72 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Others have already noted his highly cited research (only looking at papers where he is first author, I'm still seeing some with hundreds of citations). But also, several research results on which he was lead researcher have been reported in newspapers: higher risk of Alzheimer's for African-Americans in the Boston Herald and Washington Post; plans for large drug studies in the Salt Lake Tribune and Boston Herald; psychological consequences of genetic testing for Alzheimer's susceptibility in the Chicago Tribune; beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs on Alzheimer's in the Chicago Tribune. So I think he passes WP:PROF#C1, #C7, and WP:GNG for the nontrivial coverage of his research in multiple newspapers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only significant problem I see is that the article reads like a vanity piece written by a single purpose account, and as such needs a cleanup. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High cites on GS passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Editors are at liberty to clean-up. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I fundamentally disagree with the notion that an academic with an h-index of 12, or a well-cited paper should be listed on Wikipedia. Almost all academics at research universities meet these criteria, so they cannot be exclusively used to meet the threshold for notability, even when interpreted broadly. We need encyclopedic content, not vanity pieces or a catalog of faculty.Dfcigen (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLPs of researchers are determined according to the WP:Prof guidelines. If you disagree with them the best place to argue that is on those pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I completely agree with the use of citations and h-indices as academic notability metrics. However, my point is that if one were to look through the faculty list at even moderate research universities, most faculty meet this individual's h-index (12), and as such, this h-index is not notable in this context. Dfcigen (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three possible bases to support notability for academics: WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG. He seems clearly to meet the GNG. I think he meets WP:PROF also as an expert in his field. The use of h index as the sole determinant of notability is inappropriate, of course, because it fails to take account of papers with very high citations . h=42 could mean 42 papers with 42 citations each, or 41 papers with 400 each and 1 with 42, and the implications are very different. In his case, the key factor is that there are 4 or 5 papers with very high citations of over 200, The the use of citations to determine academic notability is how the profession does it. It is false that all academics at research universities meet a standards of notability based on citations: it is very rare that Assistant Professors do, for if they had done sufficient work for that, they would have been promoted. It is extremely rare that a full professor does not, for at a major university nobody is admitted to that rank without being a leader in their subject, as judged by their peers. (Associate professor is an intermediary rank; I think the determination that someone is worthy of that rank, the rank that carries tenure, indicates that their colleagues think them a leader in their subject, but some others here working on these articles think it indicates merely the promise that they will become and remain so.) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 12 February 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.

Jordhy Ledesma[edit]

References[edit]

Like Phantoms, Forever[edit]

Quarto dos Livros[edit]

Infinito (álbum de Fresno)[edit]

Asterixband (album)[edit]

List of Internet chess servers[edit]

Palestinian immigration (Israel)[edit]

Aqrab massacre[edit]

Stevie lynn jones[edit]

Pierre-Henry Maccioni[edit]

Sigval Berg[edit]

Dragon's Eye Productions[edit]

Czech Footballer of the Year[edit]

Risk analysis (business)[edit]

Intrasomatic model[edit]

Christianity's Criminal History[edit]

List of ice hockey players of black African descent[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011[edit]

Fiesta Inn[edit]

Brett Sports F.C.[edit]

Dot commercial[edit]

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Dualis[edit]

Filmlook[edit]

IIT Research Institute[edit]

Amy Golmen[edit]

Mary Golmen[edit]

Anissa Ben Marrou[edit]

EClinical trial technology[edit]

Clinical trial management system[edit]

Ziron[edit]

21Sextury[edit]

Oliver Stegmayer[edit]

Home Again Pet Recovery System[edit]

Loretta Scott Crew[edit]

2011 Yuma shooting[edit]

Nikki Rhodes[edit]

Connor Cruise[edit]

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy[edit]

List of gay African-American pornographic actors[edit]

Ew-too[edit]

Trademob[edit]

Ananda Vacanamrtam[edit]

Kho (surname)[edit]

List of people with surname Jones[edit]

Jo Jonathan[edit]

History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations[edit]

Lough Neagh Rescue[edit]

Will Meugniot[edit]

Joe Maduekwe[edit]

Subhasita Samgraha[edit]

Phil Johns[edit]

Tourism in London[edit]

Gary Kowalski[edit]

EFans (website)[edit]

Knuckles Madsen[edit]

Robert C. Green[edit]