< 6 February	8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic vocabulary[edit]

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

This seems redundant to the Wiktionary page. The Wiktionary page is also more complete, and a dictionary is better suited to lexical data like this than an encyclopedia. CodeCat (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The plan is for this page to list cognates, not mere vocabulary items, for comparative purposes. This would involve removing Macedonian and Ukrainian, removing the IPA and adding Standard Serbo-Croatian and Chakavian, maybe Slovenian also, and adding all the necessary accent marks, accent classes, noun declensions, verb conjugations, etc.. Most of these marks are missing entirely from the Wiktionary article. Refs could be made for particular items to indicate the processes involved. I've already added capsule summaries of how the various languages are pronounced, which will be enough if people really care. You are right that Wiktionary is for people wanting to look up dictionary words, but for comparative purposes that's not nearly enough. Benwing (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I have totally redone this page to reflect how I think it should be, so it's unclear how much the above comments by CodeCat still apply. Benwing (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does look better, but ironically it now resembles a different set of Wiktionary pages: wikt:Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic pronouns, wikt:Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns and so on... CodeCat (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of this article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Slavic languages in 2012; the discussion reached no consensus. A 2006 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists is also related, and a recent one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Lezgic languages may be relevant. (There are also other past AfD discussions regarding Swadesh lists.) This type of list is most commonly transwikied to Wiktionary, though there was no consensus to do so with the Slavic Swadesh list in 2012. Also, there are comparative lists at Wiktionary; see wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists. Wiktionary requires native orthography (thus for Slavic languages, some would have to be in Cyrillic and others in Latin), but allows the addition of IPA or Latin-alphabet transliteration. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an encyclopedic concept that deserves a full article. It needs a bit of reworking to emphasize the encyclopedic elements of vocabulary while not just listing different words with their meanings and pronunciation. But what we have is good enough for now. Them From Space 22:55, 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} 07:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TriMet Bus Line 55[edit]

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

A list of destinations on a local bus route is not an encyclopaedia article (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)
The page to which a merge was proposed has since been deleted for similar reason Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, point #4. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly Merge) per above comments. —Rutebega (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Individual bus routes are almost never notable for Wikipedia, and a substantial number of references (from reliable sources) would be needed to demonstrate such notability in the rare cases where a city bus route actually is notable. By contrast, this article cites no sources whatsoever. To Rutebega: The merge possibility is moot, as Baldy Bill noted, because that other article was deleted after an AFD discussion. SJ Morg (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable, poorly written, unreferenced, and little chance this article would be referred to for any reason. If one were to seek its (properly) written content, the Trimet website would be a far more productive and up-to-date source. —EncMstr (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 14 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, CSD G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people[edit]

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

This article is a duplicate of the content at List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people. It has been created in an effort to circumvent the page protection at List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people. It was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A10, but that tag was removed by another editor, with the explanation that the author's vandalistic removal of the tag was justified since they had explained why they removed the tag. (The intervening editor has been informed of the error of this action.) However, since a third party has intervened, we are brought here to AFD to resolve what should be a CSD issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As evidence of the circumvention, please read this edit on my talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10: Yes, I realize I made an error. It was largely the fault of that I didn't realize List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people existed, and I thought this one would make a good page. Let's just speedy this and move along. I've re-tagged it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugia2453 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 February 2013‎

Strong keep and redirect the other one, which is seriously messed up, to this one--Widetimed (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the other article. RNealK (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted or redirected because it has way more improved and sourced informations. The other article is only for Brooklyn Poly. This one is for the former NYU School of Engineering and Brooklyn Poly. Former and now defunct NYU School of Engineering merged with Brooklyn Poly, which in turn merged with NYU .Redirect the other one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widetimed (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The college' new name is NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering http://www.poly.edu/news/2012/12/17/nyu-affiliation-campus-expansion-covered-town-hall--Widetimed (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This institution has changed names like some people change socks. Founded as Brooklyn Collegiate and Polytechnic Institute, it spent most of its life being known as "Brooklyn Poly" until the 1970s when it went through a series of name changes, including Polytechnic Institute of New York, Polytechnic University of New York (PUNY, a particular favorite of mine), Polytechnic University (no location given -- they're just that good), NYU/Poly after a merge with NYU, and now finally NYU/Polytechnic School of Engineering. If were to create a new article every time the name changes, we'd go crazy. The proper solution in such cases is to move the page, rather than to create an entirely new page. But this all dodges the fact that the new page was created specifically to circumvent the page protection on the original page, which protection was put in place specifically to avoid the kind of spammy content that the new page has. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people only lists a very few notable and non-notable alumni of Polytechnic University of New York (PUNY, a spoof of CUNY or SUNY). List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people contains alumni of the now defunct NYU School of Engineering (it merged with PUNY in 1970) and Brooklyn Polytechnic. PUNY merged with NYU in 2008. List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people is updated, has almost double the amount of notable alumni and faculty with artcles and citations. I will soon either add citations to the very few that are still unsourced or just remove them if they are deemed non-notable. Either redirect List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people to List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people or just delete List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people.--Widetimed (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the two articles differ in specific content does not alter the fact that they both cover the exact same topic. The content differences that have been introduced into the new article were disputed in the prior article, and it is that dispute that is the very reason that the prior article was protected. Creating a new article to introduce content that was disallowed in a prior article is tantamount to vandalism and should not be tolerated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That article was protected because it was and still is super crap. List of NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering people may have some non-notable alumni/faculty and you are more than welcome to remove them if you want. That crap article was protected because a sock was removing notable alumni/faculty and was inserting crap to vandalize it. In the cross-fire, a lot of notable alumni and faculty got deleted.--Widetimed^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the G5 criterion - [1]. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:05, 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 keep. Consensus to Keep has been achieved, given that, accoring to the voters, the subject meets the correspondent notability guideline. Notwithstanding, it is recommended to remove all unencyclopedic content that is currently in the article. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da-Wen Sun[edit]

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

This academic is probably notable based on the article's content - that's not the problem. The problem is that this is an exclusively (self?-)promotional article, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten and fact-checked in order to read like a neutral encyclopedia article. The article is limited to obsequiously listing and fawning over the subject's accomplishments in a manner that one would expect in a CV. There's no hint in the article that he might ever have done something that was not absolutely brilliant and widely acclaimed. Furthermore, the content was written by accounts that are either single-purpose accounts or accounts whose editing pattern suggests that they likely have a close affiliation with the subject. That makes the content profoundly suspect, even to the extent it may superficially appear salvageable, as we would need an editor without a possible conflict of interest to double-check each sentence to verify that it is true and neutrally worded – in effect, rewriting the article. For these reasons, this is not salvageable by normal (incremental) editing. The article should be deleted until it is competently and completely rewritten by an editor without a conflict of interest. Sandstein 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "This academic is probably notable based on the article's content - that's not the problem." Au contraire-that is the problem. This BLP should be kept as at least two categories of WP:Prof appear to be satisfied. However, if the BLP is kept, the nominator would be entitled to cut it down by 80% to remove all the vainglorious puffery that he so correctly identifies. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I think this does not quite pass the bar for speedy g11, which is basically the argument advanced by the nominator. I don't think we should use AfD as a process for deleting articles that can be repaired, even if repair means stubbing them down a good bit. Ray^Talk 14:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The academy memberships give him a clear multiple pass of WP:PROF#C3. I think the article could use less emphasis on search results and citation counts, but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colletti[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources, has been in a state of no significant sourcing since at least 2007 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:NACTOR, the subject has received significant coverage in multiple entertainment sources, and as the subject was in two notable programs (Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County & One Tree Hill), the subject passes NACTOR. That being said the article is in bad shape and needs more inline references, and is largely subject to WP:BURDEN, but AfD is not a substitute for cleanup.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what "significant coverage"? the only things I found was gossip coverage that he was dating/breaking up with various people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has been the primary subject of articles in such publications as People Magazine, E! Online, and to a lesser extent in other publications (which TRPD has rightly described as gossip pieces). As these are not standard publications, I do not weight these heavily. However, as I stated the subject has been in two notable productions, which is the bare minimum stated in NACTOR. Due to this, I can only support some form of keep. I do not have a general interest in actor articles, so YMMV on what one person considers notable, and I am only going off NACTOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per significant roles in multiple notable production AND ~~significant~~ enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. This one is now fine and can only get better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you identify which of the sources actually has significant coverage about the subject? cause Stephen Colletti, still fighting to acquire some charm to animate his idol looks, is a guest V.J. on MTV is textbook in passing mention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction of WP:ENT is met and significant roles in notable productions are verified. WP:BLP is not violated. Building the article further can come over time and through regular editing. His notability is not for being covered in news... he is notable for his works. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that may be your definition of notability, but Wikipedia's definition of notability is that third party reliable sources have taken notice of your work. his participation in neither the reality show nor the other TV show nor dating a bunch of other celebutants is in any way groundbreaking nor exceptional.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No... not "my" definition, but rather one specifically described in guideline and the verification of his significant roles is available in the many reliable sources (and yes, some unreliable) that have decided to take notice in some manner.[2] While the simplest manner by which to determine notability, the GNG is not the only method we editors might use. Not all articles can or will be about folks as delightfully notable asLawrence Olivier. This one can only get better. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STN Ltd[edit]

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

I don't think this company ever reached notability, and was liquidated a few years ago. I have tried to find notable coverage but I can't find substantial independent reliable sources. -- _nonsense ferret 21:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for the above reasons. Moreover, the article has always had problems. --Langcliffe (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, appears to be have been created by the company's founder (WP:COI) for promotional purposes (WP:SOAPBOX). --Drm310 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drm310. I'd also like to note that the article is mostly sourced with junk references, such as the IMDB page for The Terminator. Another is just the company's main page, another is another company's main page, and the other two are dead. It's practically unreferenced. --BDD (talk) 00:13, 14 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 Softredirect. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder school[edit]

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

wikipedia is not a dictionary - I don't see how there will ever be enough content to turn this into an article -- _nonsense ferret 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now it is definitely a delete, but I would want to give it a little more time to see if there are any books or other RS out there that cover this. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki move to Wiktionary, leaving a soft redirect here. If for any reason this is not possible, then ignore all rules and keep. While I have some difficulty seeing how this article could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition (at least without turning it into a discussion of dozens or hundreds of feeder school policies from around the planet), this piece of educational jargon is used in over 2,000 Wikipedia mainspace articles, of which over 100 link to this one. Casual readers of Wikipedia will not necessarily be certain what the phrase means, and should have an easy method of finding out. The current content looks at least largely suitable for Wiktionary, which currently does not have an article on the phrase. PWilkinson (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and soft redirect sounds reasonable to me ---- _nonsense ferret 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki move sounds right. This entry is a dictdef, not an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't move blocks of prose wholesale to Wiktionary. I've now created the basic dictdef at wikt:Feeder school. There's nothing more to do except delete this and perhaps create whatever soft redirect may be appropriate. Sandstein 19:35, 15 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a widely celebrated holiday. Sure, Hallmark and some other sites might list it, but only alongside such things as Cellophane Tape Day and National Step in a Puddle and Splash Your Friend Day. It may perhaps be notable as a psychological mind game that children play to grow their creative thinking skills, but not as an actual set-in-stone calendar holiday. And I don't think the notability is established for either sense of it with so few sources. —Soap— 20:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Expand - What American child alive in the last 30 years hasn't done opposite day? Its a VERY popular game/fake holiday. Its received media attention such as an entire episode of Spongebob being not only about opposite day, but also named "Opposite Day". I'm actually shocked this isn't a sizable article. You'd think with a topic like this people would have put the time and effort into making it a decent article. I'd be willing to contribute heavily to its improvement. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as per consensus of previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 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 deleted by User:RHaworth, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Through The Mail Autographing[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Clearly states "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." This article is informing people of how to get autographs through the mail. WP:SPAM may also apply, as the article links to other websites that offer autographs through the mail.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original author has endorsed a deletion, so I've attached a speedy tag to the page. If it can't be speedied (they're not exactly gung-ho requesting, so it's possible it could be denied), I'm absolutely endorsing a deletion for this per WilliamJE's argument. Wikipedia is not a how to guide and WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't an argument for inclusion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 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 modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Haran[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, his projects some of them do, but him outside of the projects, no. — raeky t 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subjesct's projects are notable, but notability is not inherit, he lacks coverage sufficient to establish his own article within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think that if a person has established several notable projects, then that person themselves becomes more notable because of the projects. I would agree with the argument above if the subject matter were something that didn't have much personal exposure, and so the creator remains largely unknown even when their work is not. But Brady himself prominently features in his videos, so the notability of his videos does establish him as a recognisable personality himself. CodeCat (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Brady has received the South Australian Youth Media Awards for best news report while working as a journalist at the Adelaide Advertiser Newspaper, has received the Ruby TV Awards while working at BBC, has received the Creativity International Awards for best new media, the International Business Award for best public information multimedia, the IChemE Award for best education, the European Excellence Award for best podcast and the PRide Award for best new media, as an independent film-maker. He is one of the most popular producer of educational videos for the web, has produced more than a thousand educational videos, that have been viewed more than 50 million times. He has published articles on Science Magazine and Nature, two of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. He recently received the SPORE award from Science Magazine, whose editor-in-chief called him an "innovator in science education". He currently produces videos for 12 channels on YouTube. If all that don't constitute notability, half of the biographical articles in Wikipedia should be removed, then. The article is a stub and it needs improvements, like writing down all that information, but deleting it would be a silly decision. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of once again, a person doesn't become notable because of the projects, when the subject does, this is a exception to the rule, for instance, Gangnam Style became notable, but if PSY didn't tour with Madonna, didn't perform at notable award shows, Psy would remain non-notable, this case is pretty basic the same. Being a producer for videos on YouTube does not consist on notability. Also all (or most of) the awards you mentioned are given to podcasters, which does not suffice notability. Having a article written in Science Magazine also does not sustain notability, but if he has written an article which sprouted focus on his work or on his persona he would be notable. Please check WP:GNG for general notability guideline and WP:BIO, so far, Brady Haran doesn't meet the sufficient criteria for having an article within WP. Every thing you mentioned fails on WP:BLP1E, he has been awarded once for these minor awards, he has written a sole article in each magazine. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hugo, it seems that you have some kind of article ownership over Brady Haran, please be aware that nobody WP:OWNS any article on Wikipedia, any material on Wikipedia is result of collaborative work, it is ok to contest a WP:PROD, but DO NOT remove stub or notability templates. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I said I own the article and exactly when I removed a stub template. Please don't make false accusations. How come he fails on WP:BLP1E if I just presented many projects for which he is notable? "but if PSY didn't tour with Madonna, didn't perform at notable award shows, Psy would remain non-notable" But Brady does show up in conferences, he does get interviewed, he is cited in news articles and he is cited in scientific publications. The only reason why this is getting so much controversy is because Brady is popular in the web, and people like Zhu Xiping are not. So Xiping's article is kept, because there is no controversy. "he has been awarded once for these minor awards" You're being biased against his field. The only reason why Usain Bolt is more popular than Feliks Zemdegs is because Olympic Games are far more popular than speedcubing competitions. Zemdegs has an article of his own because he is notable on his field. The same goes for Brady. The SPORE award is one of the most important awards an independent producer of educational videos can receive. He is certainly notable on his field. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The projects are obviously notable, and Haran has been mentioned as a filmmaker in news articles ([3], [4]). And by the way, Psy is a terrible counter-example since he is very obviously notable even in the absence of Gagnam Style's Youtube popularity. squibix (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It is a hypothetical scenario, where psy would not be notable only for Gangnam Style, and you these articles yet again don't suffice notability, there are mentions, his work is notable, but his persona is not, I presume you are familiar with notability guideline. A person needs in-depth coverage, not just mentions. Notability is not WP:INHERIT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple more sources that haven't been mentioned here and put them up on the talk page if anyone wants to take a look. squibix (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CHANCE is the main reason why the article should not be deleted. The article is being flooded with complaints about its quality, many of due to the recency of the article and some, like "cite check", simply unfounded. Other arguments in favor of deletion include WP:IS and WP:1E, but it has been proved to be independent sources of notability for Brady in multiple events. Last, WP:ITSA does not apply since it is not an argument for deletion, but a counter-argument (WP:AADD). The arguments for deletion seem to be guided by overzealous deletion instead of reason and common sense. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of content, size or age, if a subject does not meet WP:N it will be deleted, so WP:CHANCE is for a subject that has the presumption of notability already, just a stub, ergo irrelevant for this discussion. — raeky t 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:CHANCE is for a subject that has the presumption of notability already", which is the case, as proven above. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of discussing the matter in here, I'd be curious on how you'd improve the article, with the lack of independent coverage. I'm not being deletionist, but this article has no encyclopedic value. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it the current article that has no encyclopedic value, or the subject? The article can be improved. CodeCat (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not read WP:CHANCE nor my comments. Please, read the discussion and the guidelines and contribute to the discussion by presenting new arguments or refuting the presented ones. Or simply abstain yourself from the discussion. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read every comment of yours, but the question is, have you read mine? The discussion is going on, but I see no improvement on the article, instead of discussing, prove that the article can be improved by improving it. Awhile back an article which I have contributed with received a prod then a afd, instead of discussing the matter I proved the subject's notability by collecting references which showed it was having enough media coverage and I started expanding the article, but to my disdain I stopped. The afd kept going on, but the substantial evidence for its notability was there, case closed, so far you have did nothing regarding this matter. Please if you want the maintenance of the article, refrain yourself from discussing, arguing here is not going to help. Always remember that voting is evil. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, it's not a requirement to improve an article if it's to pass an AfD. CodeCat (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sire, I'm intrigued, but you are misinterpreting what I'm writing, correlation does not imply causation, an article doesn't need to be improved to pass an AfD, there are hoaxes which are miraculously well written, but there are some cases when an editor improves an article and its reference, this editor proves/enhances the subject's notability factor, this is what I'm saying. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All your complaints have already been answered. Plese read WP:CHANCE and my comments again if you skimmed them or don't remember what I wrote. If you want to contribute to the discussion, present new arguments or refute the presented ones. Ad hominem does not help the discussion. And please stop making manichaeistic quotes. It is pretty easy to be evil by just following the rules, but very hard to be good by not following them. See the irony? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic meets WP:GNG and article issues are easily addressable through the plethora of reliable sources discussing thie person and his work. I find it very difficult to ignore the BBC News links found through the Find sources up above or the write-ups in such independent sources as Impact Magazine. His works have him meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER and his awards WP:ANYBIO. Seems sensible to allow it to be kept and expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have striken out my vote, I have made a further research and I've also noticed that the subject passes one basic criteria as stated on WP:ANYBIO. The main problem on this article is the lack of third-party sources, but primaries sources can be used to support the enrichment of this article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Will that annoying template be there forever until User:Raeky miraculously changes his mind? I think he is the only one still voting for deletion. It has been a whole week already. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 12:48, 14 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Sadler[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The TIMA award is of low notability nationally; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by anonymous editor. Altered Walter (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet. She hasn't being signed by a major label and there just isn't significant secondary coverage. One of the sources is an autobiographical blurb. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:03, 31 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 31 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 15:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable, lack of coverage, sadly, is her problem as of yet. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources I found for Morgan Sadler are this, this, and this, which do not seem like enough reliable sources (yet) for an article about Morgan Sadler. Andise1 (talk) 21:22, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Agabin[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)

Google search brings up lots of social media accounts, but no independent sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references provided for good notify of person's notability. --Editorkabaap (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of third party sources, the notability cannot be verified, he doesn't have enough coverage to have his own bio on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article being updated and more references and more data is being added. --Editorkabaap (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources you are providing are not enough to suffice notability, you must be aware that notability is also not inherit, the sources you provided don't put him in the light of the coverage, just a mention isn't enough to establish relevancy. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was previously nominated for deletion per WP:PROD, and I added ((Proposed deletion endorsed)) to the page when I saw that. I can't say anything about this source since it is in a language I can't read. Two of the sources were written by Freelancer.com, and I'm not sure if those sources can be considered as independent as it says that the person participated in an event organised by Freelancer.com. The rest of the sources are clearly dependent sources: texts written by the person himself or by his employers Essays.ph and Noypi.ph. When writing this comment, I searched for the person's name on Google a second time and checked the first fifty hits. Lots of the hits go to the person's personal website (www.paulagabin.com) and are clearly dependent on the subject. I also found lots of user pages on various websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus, all belonging to this person, and those pages are obviously also dependent on the subject. Apart from that, I found one or two of the Freelancer.com press releases (unclear if dependent or independent) and something which looked like search engine results and WHOIS lookup requests (which provide no information on whether the person is notable or not). Thus, I can't find any evidence that the person is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup - this source shows that the person is notable. However, expanding the piece and cleanup is required. :) Naughtybabe24 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one single source that is possibly secondary but very brief is nowhere near enough to indicate notability. For people who are in the business of self-promotion, WP:SIGCOV becomes very important. --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Super Speedy Delete it now please! Administrator! Pretty Please??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtybabe24 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Expand - WP:SIGCOV has been well addressed in the video. It's in other language, but it clearly states that the person is notable. The article just need a cleanup and expanded. Stub tag is also recommended. 223.27.168.82 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 223.27.168.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Per definition, one single source does not equal significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (which is what WP:SIGCOV is all about). --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This guy is notable, particularly in SE Asia. Article could obviously be expanded, and could use more secondary sources, but rewrite has clearly fixed major problems since the AFD was placed with article having 0 references. The Wiki Jedi (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — The Wiki Jedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as the topic passes the WP:GNG and meets WP:BIO. Nickaang (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm asking out of curiosity here - how can you know that the subject passes WP:GNG, much less WP:BIO, when the article relies on five primary sources and one source which is possibly secondary, and is only useful to people who understand spoken Tagalog? If you are aware of other secondary sources, it would be great if they were added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever WP:RS is used here is trivial coverage. All other sources -- Noypi.ph and the other one -- fail RS. The Bandila news clip isn't about him, but the concept of online writing per se. –H T D 16:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would indicate inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient independent coverage. (And I am extremely reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to previously-unheard-of online sources when we're considering an article about a putative SEO expert.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to find independent reliable sources which substantiate any claims to notability for this subject per Wikipedia criteria. The second reference, a Reuters item, states categorically: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. That, probably, says it all. Also, it is nearly two years old. And if Reuters says that, one can apply the same criteria to similar press releases published elsewhere. We need recent significant third party independent and reliable coverage to take such articles seriously. I note, too, attempts have been made to tinker with the Afd tab on the article page. Yet another person seems to have created a Wiki account just to promote this person on this AfD page. Notability per Wikipedia criteria cannot be created by resorting to such ploys. The stats page here tells its own story.--Zananiri (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not temporary; coverage does not have to be recent to be usable. Havign said that, there is no coverage recent or of any vintage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Precisely. It seems nothing of any significance whatsoever has been published since the Reuters item appeared, which is what I was getting at.--Zananiri (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no WP:INDEPTH coverage found in multiple reliable sources to denote notability as prescribed in WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most of those on here i'm mot seeing the depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also is it getting cold in here. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florist Exchange[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable web directory. No sources in article, nothing obviously found by googling. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD should not have a fallacy reason. If you do not establish a rational reason, this AfD is going to be closed. WP:GOOGLEHITS Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, although I'd note that the page that you have linked to is merely an essay and not a policy document. Nevertheless, if you wish to you may strike the line about googling and replace it with the following, quoted directly from that essay as an example of a good argument to use: "No reliable sources found to verify notability". The fact is that the article contains no reliable sources to establish notability - indeed, no sources at all. The only external links in the article are to the subject's own websites. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are some Google News hits, none of them seem to be about this British organization. A normal Google search doesn't throw up any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and no evidence that it meets WP:CORP. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. It may be an attempt to create a rival for Interflora. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 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 Kim Kyung Ho. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

00:00:1998[edit]

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

None of the mentions on pages I found via Google are sources Wikipedia would consider reliable, no significant coverage. Repeating the same on Google Books or Google Scholar also turned up no usable sources. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about the third studio album from rock singer Kim Kyung Ho. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kim Kyung Ho unless there are sources in Korean or other non-English languages. Doesn't appear to be notable in the western music press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Kyung Ho JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:18, 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 No consensus. The comments below and the spread of !votes so far indicate that we are dealing with a situation where there is sufficient evidence that the subject is notable and merits inclusion, but the sources we have ready access to are not helping. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FieldTrip[edit]

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

Non-notable software in development. PROD contested Mdann52 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is intended to be a clean description of a MATLAB toolbox for advanced analysis of EEG/MEG/electrophysiological data in general. This wikipedia entry should describe the current state and the history of the toolkit, and where it is developed. It is in several ways comparable to e.g. EEGLAB, and in some ways comparable to SPM. We collaborate and share code with both. FieldTrip is an important toolbox for many people doing data-analysis in neuroscience, especially, but not exclusively, in cognitive neuroscience. As such, I hope the article does not warrant a delete. In it's current state it does not suffice, but I hoped a small entry would be okay to start with. In hindsight, I should have made a full version before submitting. This will take some more time, at least more than 2 weeks. Roemervandermeij (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 15:54, 7 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! 15:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Even though I was the article's original PRODder, I am going to !vote neutral. The reason for this is that the article describing this software has already been cited over 100 times (Web of Science; over 200 times in the less precise Google Scholar), despite having been published very recently (2011). If the article creators could provide us with an independent (reliable) source discussing or reviewing this toolbox, I would change for a "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a marginal case. Sources I found:

Independent paper that uses FieldTrip to compare against author's software. Marginally in depth about FieldTrip, but FieldTrip wasn't the main topic.
Review article on Matlab based tools for brain computer interaction. A team of authors of different packages, Robert Oostenveld is one of them. So sort of independent, but not unambiguously so.
Review article on software tools for MEG As with the previous source, a review by multiple authors, including Robert Oostenveld.
FieldTrip is in NeuroLex, a community-curated directory of neuroscience information. Probably independent, but not reliable by WP standards
There was a 2.5 day workshop on FieldTrip in 2011

Except for the first reference, none of these are both fully independent and reliable. But obscure software packages don't get invited to review papers or have workshops held for them, and Randykitty's citation counts hold weight, too. Given the article's potential, I would lean toward keep, but this remains a comment on sources found for now. --Mark viking (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. The text seems neutral and factual, even if jargony; that's a big plus. It seems to be a small, open source academic project about important sounding stuff. Yes, people may want to know about this a hundred years from now. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several workshops have been given at various location in the world - Google might not be the best source for finding them and not all were announced online. In the following I'm gonna list some more links and facts which might help to make a decision:

A FieldTrip workshop was given in St. Louis in light of the Human Connectome Project of which FieldTrip is part of and receives funding from (In line with Mark viking's argument, an obscure software package would hardly receive funding from the National Institutes of Health)
FieldTrip also receives funding by Braingain - a project with a budget of 24.000.000Euro
One of the many upcoming workshops - this one is at the university of Tübingen
In the past there have been several toolkits at the Donders Institute the last in 2012. The toolkits are always well visited with people coming from renowned universities and institutes (this is just an arbitrary example, but it strengthens the importance of the toolbox for electrophysiological data analysis in the neuroscience community)
The FieldTrip Wiki itself lists more workshops - definitely not an independent list, but the most complete summary of external workshops that have been and will be given (though incomplete by itself).
EEGLAB and FieldTrip have, as already mentioned, a collaboration going, see also the EEGLAB homepage mentioning this
An extensive list of papers citing FieldTrip. The paper that Randykitty already mentioned was just published in 2011 - before 2011 it was common to refer to FieldTrip as an URL. That is why this list is probably also incomplete and it is hardly possible to find all papers citing FieldTrip before 2011/2012. -- Horschig (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is harmless and sourcing is adequate. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not all the arguments given above by Horschig are pertinent (amount of funding, for example, or the workshops being given) and I do think that, in fact, this is very close (probably just below) our notability bar. However, as Looie496 says, the article is sourced and it is non-promotional. And given the huge amount of citations to their article after just 2 years, I don't think we need a crystal ball to see that this will be notable shortly. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be art[edit]

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

Non-notable art movement. No significant improvement in the refs since the PROD was removed two years ago. The French version has been deleted for the same reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 7 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, Courcelles 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Available refs are outdated, no further sources otherwise on Google. hmssolent\Let's convene 03:05, 14 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. Courcelles 00:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-99 Wamego Bridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge. Dough 48 72 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No "inherent notability" for every two lane bridge which ever existed unless multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources are identified. Edison (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bridge is not notable. –TC N7 JM 10:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just expanded the article as was concluded as needed during the first AfD. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You call that expansion? It's still nowhere near anything but a stub. –TCN7JM 21:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A stub can be a legitimate article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse the random hostility there. Don't know what got into me. You're correct, though. –TCN7JM 05:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excused! No problems!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Source three does not look reliable, source two is a trivial mention (literally a DYK fact), and source four doesn't even talk about this bridge and so cannot be used to help establish notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a previous bridge at this location was the longest bridge of the Marsh arch type ever built, notability appears to be established. Notability is not temporary - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained in reply to PennySpender, the sources provided do not establish notability; they are unreliable and trivial and do not meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reference #2, at least, is reliable. It cites the longest bridge statement. Therefore, notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also do not subscribe to the concept that notability is proven by a trivial mention in a single source. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability is established by the fact that the bridge was the longest Marsh arch bridge ever. The source verifies that notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 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, MBisanz ^talk 13:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Less sure about the other bridges nominated along with it, but this one is interesting as described and in an interesting area (OZtoberFEST?). DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bridge's history makes this notable; besides the references in the article, there's this article about Marsh arch bridges which mentions the Wamego bridge. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:56, 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} 07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conecture Technologies[edit]

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

Article is about a company that does not have the significant coverage needed in independent reliable sources to meet notability criteria. The article is sourced to press releases / press release rehash. My own search finds no reliable sources covering this company. Whpq (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The bulk of the article is pure advertising: unreferenced text describing the capabilities of this business's intangible products, as usual written in gibberish: The company is best recognized for its hosted solutions, Mediabox-PA for online product approvals workflow and Mediabox-DAM for digital asset management and delivery, focused exclusively for the Consumer Products Licensing, Brand Management and Media & Entertainment (TV Distribution/Broadcasting) industries. The "references" catalogue appearances of this business at trade shows, and that would not appear to be a subminimal assertion of importance, much less the significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 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 Speedy delete SmartSE (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabox-DM[edit]

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

Article reads like an advert. The only source in the article is to a press release. My own search for coverage in reliable sources turn up nothing. Whpq (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam; so tagged. "References" are from PR.COM. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 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 Speedy delete SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabox-PA[edit]

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

Article reads like a advert. The article is sourced entirely to press releases. I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aura Sonic[edit]

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

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)).

The only facts in this article that can be verified from reliable sources are that Aura Sonic was founded in 1977([5]) and that owner Steve Remote has received one TEC Award([6]) and has been the recording engineer on one Grammy-winning album.([7]). Based on the awards, Remote might meet the criteria for inclusion (although mere listings in directories would probably not be sufficient to build an article around). But there is a clear lack of independent sources on which to build an article about Aura Sonic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several independent sources here that provide a neutral point of view including Mix Magazine, Billboard, All Music, and Discogs. Several citations have been added. Compared to the Wally Heider Studios and other similar pages, the Aura Sonic biography has a great deal of verifiable sources and has since been given high trustworthy ratings. JLurie12 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I actually just came across this article and the information about the Aura Sonic trucks through the years is actually really helpful. I had read about Steve in magazines before discussing his fleet but seeing them with their specs and pictures was really important. Devinebrian1 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)— Devinebrian1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article is an accurate depiction of Aura-Sonic and its mobile fleet of trucks. Not only does it give notable sources for factual events and awards, that the Aura Sonic fleet has attended and received, but it also gives us an in depth description of the companies history and its capability in the mobile recording and live broadcasting industry. I could not see a reason why this page would be put up for deletion. Saying that there is not sufficient enough data to write an article on Aura-Sonic is preposterous and its impact on the recording industry, since 1977, has been huge, especially in the case of live production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.62.40 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — 142.105.62.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After reading about Aura Sonic through Gearslutz, reading various magazine articles such as Mix magazine and EQ magazine, and even hearing Grammy winning recordings that this company has produced, this page gives a great clarification as to who the company is and what location recording is about. Ofretoixl (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)— Ofretoixl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep - per WP:GNG. The source here is actually by a professional journalist who covers recording related news, and there are other sources like [8], [9] and [10]. The article is written like an advertisement, but the promotional tone and content can easily be removed and I think it can be improved further. Nimuaq (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually looked quite closely at that Mix Online article in considering this nomination. I'm sorry, I think it feels too much like an advertorial to be considered independent and reliable. The Cutting It Close entry is a blog, and the Billboard entry is something akin to a wrap up of recent press releases, although I will admit that the inclusion of that press release in the wrap up may well indicate that Billboard considered Aura Sonic of sufficient notability to be included. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also this source, though it can't be considered an independent one. I can see your concern on building an article with these types of sources and I accept that my sources for keep are weak at best. I think Steve Remote meets the criteria in WP:ANYBIO, so this article could have been merged to his article if he had one. Nimuaq (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article? Half Note Records ^[1] gets a page, and Aura Sonic Ltd has done the production on nearly every release listed there. Here ^[2] is but one example from CD Universe but yes, you may have to scroll down the page to actually see the credit to Steve Remote. One of the few companies left preserving the living history of Jazz through successful commercial releases, not only through the work for Half Note Records (the house label of the famed Blue Note Jazz Club in NYC ^[3]), but also for its years of work on the Newport Jazz Festival, most notably the TEC Award winning PBS production, but also every year since on NPR, the history of this company is interwoven with the modern history of the art form itself. The constant evolution of its recording trucks has had an impact on the design and philosophy of many of the other companies in its industry. I mean, Pepsi gets its own article, why not Aura Sonic Ltd.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersonSoundRecording (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — AndersonSoundRecording (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have worked with Aura Sonic before and I can say that Steve and his truck are the real deal. After reading the wikipedia article I can attest to the fact that none of this information is false. Aura sonic recorded my previous band Cosmos Says Hello on April 1st, 2012 at Studio at Webster hall in New York City. The job done by Aura Sonic team was leaps and bounds above any other live recording I have ever received. I have also had the opportunity to stop by the Aura Sonic truck and chat with it's owner. In his truck I was played recordings and videos that were done by Aura Sonic. I witnessed and heard recordings that were grammy winning and of outstanding quality. I have also seen video credits and cd credits of all the bands listed. This Article is 100 percent accurate and SHOULD NOT be taken down. (4) Kurt Gottwald (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Kurt Gottwald— Kurt Gottwald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why delete this article? Half Note Records ^[4] gets a page, and Aura Sonic Ltd has done the production on nearly every release listed there. Here ^[5] is but one example from CD Universe but yes, you may have to scroll down the page to actually see the credit to Steve Remote. One of the few companies left preserving the living history of Jazz through successful commercial releases, not only through the work for Half Note Records (the house label of the famed Blue Note Jazz Club in NYC), but also for its years of work on the Newport Jazz Festival, most notably the TEC Award winning PBS production, but also every year since on NPR, the history of this company is interwoven with the modern history of the art form itself. The constant evolution of its recording trucks has had an impact on the design and philosophy of many of the other companies in its industry. I mean, Pepsi gets its own article, why not Aura Sonic Ltd.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersonSoundRecording (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 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, J04n(talk page) 11:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the abundance of SPAs coming on to comment, I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JLurie12. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 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. Pruning can be done through normal editing, AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Widiger[edit]

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

Article reads like a resume. Has been flagged for cleanup since 2007 with little to no improvement. No results in JSTOR. He's an academic psychologist, so of course he is published but he doesn't appear to be a notable academic psychologist. *Kat* ^(meow?) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GScholar search gives an h-index score of over 60 which, even with most or all of the articles multiple-authored, would be well beyond enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in most areas. If this area is an exception, then someone will no doubt come along and correct me. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That h-index is kinda conclusive, but somebody who knows psychology should go and prune that bibliography so that only the most important works are listed. Successful academics have hundreds of publications, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of their entire CVs. Ray^Talk 14:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. h-index is conclusive but nom would be entitled to purge unnecessary material. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 14 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 deleted. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bošković family[edit]

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

This article is pretty much a classic hodgepodge of unverifiable theories. I've tried to take a good-faith approach in fixing it by editing and tagging, but ran into problem after problem: we don't know if the family had nobility, we don't know if any members other than Ruđer and possibly his father were notable by our standards, in fact, we don't actually know anything substantial about any other members. Most of the information we do have depends on the works on either almost-anonymous non-English authors with no apparent credibility but an apparent propensity to make overreaching claims, or worse Marko Atlagić. Most of the contentious information is conspicuously dated to the period of the rise in Serbian nationalism and breakup of Yugoslavia.

When I looked into the history, I found that most of the content was added by User:HolyRomanEmperor, User:PaxEquilibrium and User:Nikola Smolenski, and as I recall, all of these users have been known to add pan-Serbian propaganda to articles on the English Wikipedia. User:GregorB recently noticed on Talk that the article is a big coat-rack, and I concur - it looks like it was basically made to serve as a crutch for calling Ruđer Bošković a Serb.

I've salvaged whatever useful content I could find into Nikola Bošković - the rest should be discarded as an egregious violation of the sourcing and original research policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not taking a view either way on the article itself, but I removed the Theories section as unencyclopedic: whether they were theorized to be "pure" Serbian or "related to the Pokrajčić" or ("based partly on an oral history", of course) [what does that even mean?] "converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism" — no matter how well sourced these statements are (and I wouldn't call them "well" sourced before I removed the section), unless they are central to who these people are, they aren't encyclopedic. --Storkk (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and now that the theories have been gutted, the article is left as a useless shell. Everything there is basically about Ruđer and his father, and we already have articles about both. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: After reviewing the article, I must concur with your reasoning.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (i.e. merge as appropriate and delete). Coat rack problem aside, I don't see the case for standalone notability of the subject; everything meaningful that can be said about it can be said in either Ruđer Bošković or Nikola Bošković. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Bohacik[edit]

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

It must have an article in the Czech Wikipedia to expand the text using translation. Eye snore 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep That's not a reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - frivolous nomination without a valid procedure-based rationale. C 679 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree with the reason for nomination, but since we are here, I am not finding sources that he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. WP:GNG does not appear to be met, with sources I am finding appearing to be trivial mention of his name ot WP:ROUTINE game coverage. Granted, these sources might exist through searches in other language-specific search engines or in offline sources, but those will need to be identified.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1750 google hits on iDNES.cz (Mladá fronta DNES) including this, which seems to meet GNG. C 679 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not necessarily an indication of notability by Wikipedia GNG standard. Perhaps you can help identify a few independent sources that have significant coverage of Bohacik. Also, the search result you provided all seems to be from idnes.cz. Note that per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." We would need additional publications to satisfy GNGs "multiple sources" requirement.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this one at Deník, this one in 2009 from the NBL league website mentioning he is first star of the week, another star of the week (from the year before) from Blesk, and another article from Blesk. C 679 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NBL is the league he plays in, so it is not WP:INDY coverage that GNG requires. The rests seems like WP:ROUTINE planned coverage of games with summaries that have some mentions of his name. GNG wants significant coverage that goes beyond mundane game recaps. More articles like "another star of the week (from the year before)" that you provided would be needed, as that one is independent and not routine.—Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly in-depth articles from independent media sources that I have already linked to above are not routine match reports, and even if you don't bother going to Google translate to see what they mean, you can see there is specific detail relating to the player himself. Topics include his brother's career, playing for the national team and detailed assessment of his personal scoring percentages. C 679 08:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an unsourced statement in the article that he played for the Czech Republic national basketball. Is there a source for that, and did he play in a notable competition like EuroChallenge? If so, that might be used to establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely played in EuroChallenge, see 8 Nov 2011 10 Jan 2012 etc. I will have a look for national team news. C 679 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was named in the squad in 2007 and also in 2010, this article from 2009 mentions that he has played with the national team. ~~And finally here you can see he scored 6 points in a game against Turkey in 2005.~~. Sorry, that's u-20. C 679 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly not that familiar with basketball in Europe. I think it was EuroBasket competition that I meant, which I confirmed and added to the article. WP:NSPORTS mentions Olympics specifically, but is vague about other international competitions. I'll discuss at WT:NSPORTS for clarification.—Bagumba (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no consensus at Wikipedia_talk:NSPORTS#Notable_international_basketball_competitions whether participation in these competitions make a player presumably notable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at a minimum he played for the Czech Republic in the 2005 U20 European Championships per this. I feel like an All-Star level player in a country's top professional league is PROBABLY notable. I think there are some issues trying to research these kinds of articles due to language issues and access to Czech press, but I am seeing a player who seems to be regarded of one of his country's best and is a top player in a country's top league. The Basketball notability standards have some issues. Why is a second round NBA Draft pick who never plays in the league automatically notable while a Czech All-Star isn't? I'll do some more research on the guy, but I say keep. Rikster2 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A common theme at WP:NSPORTS is that it's the coverage that a player receives or presumably has received that makes them notable, not their stature in a specific country. Now you might be right that NSPORTS has some issues, but his pro career isn't presumed to be notable using current guideline criteria. EuroBasket might be another path to presumed notability, but even that is unclear.—Bagumba (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guidelines say, I was just trying to give an example of how silly they are when put beside each other. I'd argue with EuroBasket, international play and being an All-Star level player in a fully professional league we should be able to assume he meets GNG, just like if he met the stated guidelines at NBASKETBALL, which can never anticipate every case. Rikster2 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here are search result pages at two Czech newspaper sites here and here. I haven't started translating results, just curious what I'd get. Rikster2 (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Multiple sources of significant, independent coverage have not been identified to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL as currently written. If an All-Star in his league was notable, GNG should be able to be demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Withdrawing my delete, as I can look at this interview and, depending on my mood, call it significant coverage or just a routine post game interview. With the advent of cable tv, lots of high-schoolers would get the same 1-on-1 interviews. Sure he is an all-star and on national team, but if it were that significant, wouldn't more obvious (not borderline) significant coverage have been found by now? I'm deferring judgement in light of my indecision of the interview. Usually I look for three or more sources, though I know some consider two to be multiple enough.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented above by the editor signing as C679 substantiate notability per WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Petr Bohačík shows plentiful notable sources. I hope there have been no previous AfDs with this cited rationale. Also when doing an AfD or RM it is good practice to check Talk to ensure project tags are in place, in this case without a WP Czech Republic tag the "local" project team cannot pick up the AfD on their alerts lists. Added. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify the non-WP:ROUTINE coverage from independent sources you have found? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 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, J04n(talk page) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable player, covered by the mayor news. --Yopie (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources from iDNES alone, bogus nomination rationale, not sure why this was relisted. - filelake shoe  14:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regrettably, voters to keep are making a WP:VAGUEWAVE that the subject is notable, pointing merely to WP:GOOGLEHITS or other search engine hits, without providing excerpts for discussion that counter my contention that the hits are trivial mentions or WP:ROUTINE game summaries. There is also a lack of good faith that "you don't bother going to Google translate". This discussion has regressed to a WP:POLL. I am bowing out unless the content of specific sources are discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see at least 4 non trivial non match reports linked by C679 imediately before and after your comment that starts "WP:GOOGLEHITS." Only one of them was from the NBL site (and I didn't count one that appears to be a match report). Rikster2 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agreed that the source from idnes.cz posted at 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) was significant. However, I also stated that GNG needed multiple sources, not multiple articles from the same publication. I found the ones posted after to be routine, but perhaps you can identify the specific ones you are referring to and why you believe they are not routine. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regrettably, you are characterising the multiple specific sources from multiple publishers with non-trivial and non-routine coverage identified by C679 above as vague waves, when they are not at all vague and not at all wavy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:ROUTINE discounts "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events." There are lots of game coverage that mention a player. It is why. for example, a high school player who gets plenty of routine coverage would not generally be considered notable. I believe it would be more effective for supporters to identify and discuss specific coverage that is significant, than for me to point out all the routine, trivial coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        As I and others keep telling you, C679 has already identified specific, non-routine coverage above. Instead of asking us to copy the links from one place to another in this discussion why don't you just check out those sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I did look at the sources. See my response above at 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) that starts "NBL is the league he plays in ...". To which the response to me was that it was "Clearly in-depth", a claim that "you don't bother going to Google translate", and a commentary about sources without identifying which source I might have overlooked. I might very well be wrong, but just responding back "it is notable" is not constructive.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        NBL was not the only source at issue there. The others specifically identified by C679 do constitute non-routine coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba - the link above your GOOGLEHITS comment is I believe the one you admitted wasn't routine. The first link after your comment (at Denik) is an interview with the subject at a source not affiliated with his team or league. Of the two Blesk articles, one is a match report but the other calls him specifically out for star performance. I'd also argue that the NBL article is specific about him not just as a member of his team. I understand this isn't independent coverage, but taken with the others (as well as his FIBA international career, EuroBasket and All Star status in his league - which I verified through the NBL media guide btw) I think these establish his notability. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I accepted the denik interview as one signif source. We need multiple ones though. The second Blesk, via Google Translate, is one IMO trivial mention "In the end, however, tore Východočeši win on his side. encounter became a hero visiting Peter Bohačík." I guess at the end of the day, I'm looking for coverage that we can write a bio, not that he was someone mentioned in passing in one sentence that he was good here and here and that's it. I'm admittedly being strict on GNG, while you are taking outside factors that have not been accepted at NSPORTS. Time could prove me wrong, and I have no prejudice to this article being recreated when the non-English sources—online or offline—are found or NSPORTS is modified. I understand your point, and I think we can agree to disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already "accepted" the iDnes source as well, so that's multiple sources. If GNG is met, NSPORTS does not have to be met. This discussion will however prove useful in the establishment of articles for similar non-NBA players. C 679 09:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the iDNES.cz one clearly meets GNG - interview with the subject not tied to a game from an independent source (and not even a sports-specific site). I'd only point out that GNG does not require that enough coverage through independent sources is there to actually build a bio. Once you've established notability, you can bring in sources from his team, league and FIBA to fill out the bio - and there is ample coverage to do so with this subject. There are hundreds of athlete articles that are built entirely from information from their college, team or league. If they meet GNG or the sport notability guidelines that's acceptable. Rikster2 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. The discussion helped. Going back and forth with translations and a whole list of sources can get unwieldy. I've withdrawn my delete, but I'm not in a position to support. See my comments above.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is whack. You don't need an article in another language just because the subject such as this person is speaks that language. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the article at cs.wiki already existed and has since been linked to the one here. C 679 06:40, 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 the subject may not be well-known in English-speaking countries, sufficient reliable sources have been provided to prove notability. SouthernNights (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Apraksina[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG mainly due to unreliable sources, especially those that are individuals' self-publications. She also fails WP:ARTIST spectacularly. Past versions were products of blatant COI editing, and much content was eliminated as either biographically insignificant, outright unsupported, or both. Several sources were grossly misrepresented in a way to aggrandize the subject. Some Russian-language sources that had no glaring reliability problems were in fact written by persons associated with the subject, including her commercial promoters (of course, the articles and publishers didn't disclose this, but searching for the name of the writer made it obvious). The same goes for the original editor of the article, who is an associate of the subject and liked to cite himself. Having looked over time, several times, for better sources, I have found none. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John and team:

I've meant to respond for the last month to the issues you've raised, and just haven't had time. I understand your basic perspective, and why in many cases this likely makes you a good and committed editor for Wikipedia. However, it seems important to respond to the basic assumptions you appear to have been applying in auditing the article on Tatyana Apraksina, as well as to provide details relevant to various points of the article as it was and as it currently stands. To date, the general practice of sweeping changes without consultation with the original editor has been unfortunate. You certainly spend more time with Wikipedia than I do, so are likely in a good position to cite and apply policy items. However, your comments flatly and unfoundedly attack the character of the subject of the article, the editor of the article, and each person cited in the article, either implying or directly stating a view that the article was submitted to Wikipedia for commercial purposes. You've reviewed the article, so have some context for further contemplation. Where in the description of this artist's activities do you see anything like a commercial orientation? Nearly all her exhibits have taken place in noncommercial, public settings, sponsored by academic, state-funded or nonprofit arts organizations. She has published with academic publishing houses (St. Petersburg University and Moscow St. University) and a range of literary journals. Two of her best-known paintings, portraits of Shostakovich, belong to the Composers Union in St. Petersburg and are permanently displayed there. These organizations and the people involved with them are not interested in self-promotion, but in devotion to the arts and knowledge, and to be involved with them at all is a certification of credibility, and not the only one as respects the subject.

As for my own role in the drafting the original article, I have no particular personal interest at stake in the article's form or indeed in whether it exists or not. I am a translator of Russian with education in Russian studies, and elected to contribute to Wikipedia simply out of love of culture, and feeling that my fluency in Russian and familiarity with aspects of the culture would allow me to provide information of value to those whose primary language and cultural context is based in the English language. I drafted the Wikipedia article at the suggestion of a noted historian of Russian descent, who spoke highly of Wikipedia in general as an international information resource. In conceiving of how to contribute to this shared resource, I have followed the dictate "write what you know." I am indeed an associate of Tatyana Apraksina, and have been so since the late 1990s; however, her career and professional recognition far predates this time and exceeds the scope of my own writing about her (her first exhibit was in 1976; her next major exhibits in 1983, 1984, etc.), and I value objectivity as much as you do. Yes, my original article sourced a number of works I authored; however, the sourced statements were objective, and could have been sourced to other articles. I don't at all mind leaving out those citations. I just don't possess access to everything ever published about the subject, a considerable part of which predates the Internet and appeared in publications (English, Russian or German) that have not digitized their archives. In translating the subject's work and interviewing her extensively in this regard, I have been able to restate in my own way things that others have written repeatedly. Easily, though, a version of the article could stand based on available resources.

Again, this has nothing to do with promotion. The goal here is cultural communication, and of course many factors work against this: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the phenomenon of Russian cultural diaspora; the supression of non-state artists during the Soviet period and the necessity of working independently or "underground"; intrinsic language and cultural barriers, often including Western chauvinism toward Russia; and the general predicament of high art, which does not necessarily make news in the same regular way as do the artifacts of mass culture. English-language Wikipedia, as we know, is glutted with mass culture, and while the living persons treated in Wikipedia certainly extend beyond the English-speaking world, there by nature must be a gravity toward English-speakers. Logically, when we have opportunities to correct the balance, we should do so, and I'm sure you do at a lot of this yourselves.

I am more than happy to craft the article in a way that allows us to reach a consensus. When I first became aware of the changes to the article, I added a recent source, in fact, from Vesti, the largest Russian-language newspaper in Israel, which corroborated the factual basis and significance of most of what the original article stated. (No, the author is not a personal acquaintance; he is a professional journalist.) You have removed this as source as a "web-based self-publication," which is inaccurate. The publication on the Nautilus web portal clearly states that the original article appeared in Vesti, a print publication only selectively available online. Based on the spot in the Tatyana Apraksina article which reads "citation needed," you seem to want to establish whether it's indeed accurate to say the "music-inflected unofficial culture of the time began to interesct actively with her life." This is clear in Mak's article, as well as in the Alexander Kushnir article currently retained in the article as a citation.

We probably can go into details here, as you seem to value integrity. My initial priorities, noting your audit of this article, have been to remove inaccuracies introduced through your audit itself. For example, your redo of the article stated that Apraksina "writes her self-publication Apraksin Blues." The magazine has existed since 1995, publishing a broad range of authors then and since then. Occasionally the magazine includes articles by Apraksina and regularly her editor's note, because she is the head of the magazine, much like, say, David Remnick at the New Yorker — on a different scale, but also with validly different purposes. The magazine is no more a self-publication than any other periodical of its species of small noncommercial cultural journals. Apraksin Blues is a community effort and certainly represents a labor of love. By nature, many people who have come into contact with Apraksina and her work have wound up having something to do with the magazine and have become loosely her associates, altruistically.

This is the case, for example, with Natalya Gladush, whose 1998 article on Apraksina and her art festival at the St. Petersburg State University Department of Philosophy you have removed from the article's citations, calling her "associated with the subject, apparent publicist, and organizer of several Apraksina events." As of 1998, N. Gladush had no relationship at all with Tatyana Apraksina; she was a radio journalist assigned to cover Apraksina's arts festival, and also produced the writing for the Department of Philosophy's publication. Since then, she has assisted with outreach in Russia, helping to technically maintain relationships with the magazine's authors and readers there during Apraksina's period of work based in the U.S. She's organized events presenting new issues of the magazine, for instance, and the magazine's sponsoring role in certain cultural and educational activities in St. Petersburg, again completely unrelated to promoting Apraksina herself.

Reviewing selected other changes: regarding Apraksina's St. Petersburg State University exhibit at its Center for Contemporary Art in 1998, you added incongruously that she was "one of several artists to exhibit there." The exhibit in question was a large solo exhibit. You also felt compelled to note that Apraksina's "California Psalms" was among "many" laureates or "dozens of laureates" of the Russian Foreign Ministry in partnership with Literary Gazette. Many literary prizes feature multiple laureates, and this note in itself appears irrelevant. Moreover, one of the key figures in the outcome of this contest, Literary Gazette's Sergei Glovyuk (no acquaintance), specially cited Apraksina's work as exceptional, and explained why. This explanation, too, you struck from the article, which included it namely because it encapsulates a typically response to her literary work. Additionally, "California Psalms" had already been published in the Russian literary magazine "Neva" — a fact previously noted but which you struck from the record along with reference to every other publication by Apraksina, perhaps to maintain the narrative of supposed self-promotion and self-publication. You have retained the mention of her 2000 publication by the St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, but have removed the citation for this, for seemingly unfounded reasons.

You've removed all reference to Apraksina's work with the composer Alexander Lokshin, which has been documented extensively. Apart from her articles on Lokshin given scholarly publication in Russia, her portrait of Lokshin can be seen on the cover of multiple recordings of Lokshin's work, as well as at the head of the Wikipedia article on Lokshin. You've removed the reference to her work by Moisey Kagan, one of the most respected Russian art critics of the 20th century, who clearly identifies the importance of her work "Faces of Shostakovich" as an interpretation of the composer and as a work of portraiture. (On what basis have you called him a "related party"? I certainly don't know. Just as there was nothing "hagiographic" in the original quote from the academic monograph cited, as you'll see if you take another look with different lenses.) Digital reproductions of Apraksina's portraits of Lokshin and Shostakovich were also provided with the article not as "excessive images," as you've termed them, but to illustrate specific points, and as among the artist's most often reproduced works, including publications with international distribution such as Soviet Union.

You've removed whole swathes of the original article as supposedly representing irrelevant "name-dropping," a rather provocative charge. Yes, certain well-known individuals have comprised Apraksina's circle of associates or subjects at various times, because all were engaged in significant endeavors. It is of significance that she produced paintings related to the Borodin Quartet, to the Leningrad Philharmonic under Mravinsky, to Lokshin, to Shostakovich, to the composer Boris Tishchenko, to the violinist Mikhail Gantvarg, because these people have been vessels of the culture of classical music and the arts as a whole in St. Petersburg and beyond, and Apraksina has belonged to and further their tradition. As also cited in the Wikipedia article, in Mak's and Kushnir's article, and extensively online elsewhere, her role as the muse of Mike Naumenko was also incredibly significant — a little like Suze Rotolo for Bob Dylan, but completely different in the sense of Apraksina's independent contribution to a sphere of arts much broader than popular music, through her own creative life, as both Mak and Kushnir indicate.

That there are fewer references regarding these topics than there could be, results primarily from Apraksina having spent the most of the past 14 years in the U.S., largely outside the scope of the Russian mass media, and to her having little interest in the sort of self-promotion you claim marked the Wikipedia article on her biography and her work, and from the fact that the Internet is not inclusive, or the lone aribiter, of all times and places.

To continue: Tatyana Apraksina is currently based in California, so it is natural that some additional articles on her have appeared in the media there. You removed one citation as "excessively local news giving scant treatment"; even were this accurate, alternate citations could easily be supplied. Indeed, some but not all would be from state-level media and potentially could be insufficient in themselves to establish Apraksina's significance. But as regards significance, these are hardly isolated sources, and they were included for what they added in showing the shape of her biography.

You removed reference to Representative Sam Farr's support of Apraksina, calling him an "irrelevant politician not known for artistic opinions," while in fact Sam Farr is known both for his ties with the preservation of the legacy of the poet Robinson Jeffers in his district, as well as for conservation efforts in Big Sur, one of his primary motivations for joining the group of representatives of California-based arts organizations and educational institutions who wrote in favor of Apraksina's continued work in the United States at this time.

You've removed reference to Apraksina's 2008 cantata libretto as being presented on a "blog" — the blog of the American Composers Assocation, a highly respected organization, not a personal site.

You've removed all reference to Apraksina's 1989-90 tour of America with her paintings as a Soviet artist, sponsored by the Soros Foundation, a tour which received extensive press coverage wherever she exhibited, although again predating the Internet era.

Reality does not depend on the Internet. None of the activities described is highly remunerative or premeditatively popular in orientation, but for those who value refined, non-speculative culture, all this merits some degree of reverence.

Again, I have little interest in how you choose to proceed with this matter via Wikipedia administration; the platform is hardly exclusive, and while you may seek infallibility, of course no one can be. Having sought to contribute to the natural process of synthesis of information, drawing on my own knowledge and others', I merely find it impossible to accept a reckless, albeit thorough, assault on both the quality of the source information and its underlying reality. We can do better than this. As you seem to invite, I'm happy to work with you in good faith to ensure that the Wikipedia article is in a form you find satisfactory. Please keep in mind, however, that promotion is not my business, nor is it the business of anyone associated with Tatyana Apraksina. Rather, it is the pursuit of life and craft, one of the major benefits of being a "living person" as I understand it. At the same time, I hope you'll agree that "living" need not preclude constructive discourse. Jmanteith (㊟) 10:37 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Jmanteith can show actual significant coverage (let's see the links) of the subject in reliable news sources. I did a search under both alphabets and could find no newspaper coverage nor book coverage of any note. This is AfD, we don't need essays, a few sentences verifying notability is sufficient. Otherwise, articles on CREATIVES like this without sufficient coverage get deleted all the time, when they are discovered.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links for the initial stage of the article's reconstruction. For reference, below are provided translations from relevant source materials. Other links are available, and more should be forthcoming over the next 12 months given the scheduled publication of two bilingual editions of Apraksina's work in 2013. Thanks.

LINK 1:

Kushnir, Alexander. Mike, "Sweet N and Others" - from 100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock. (in Russian)

The link given (http://www.rockanet.ru/100/17.phtml) is to this album's entry in the full electronic version of the book. The print publication details are as follows: Moscow: Agraf, Kraft+, 2003. 400 pages. ISBN 5-7784-0251-1. (М.: Аграф, Крафт+, 2003. — 400 с. — ISBN 5-7784-0251-1)

Russian Wikipedia contains pages on both Kushnir and the book "100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock".

The Kushnir article opens:

"Alexander Isaakovich Kushnir is a journalist, music producer, the general director of the music information agency "Kushnir Productions," the author of a series of books on Soviet and Russian music, including "Headliners" and "100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock. He is the author of liner notes for anthologies of CDs by the groups "Nautilus Pompilus" and "Aquarium" and for the series "Legends of Russian Rock."

"Алекса́ндр Исаа́кович Кушни́р — журналист, музыкальный продюсер, генеральный директор музыкально-информационного агентства «Кушнир Продакшн», автор ряда книг о советской и российской музыке, в том числе «Хедлайнеры», «100 магнитоальбомов советского рока». Автор текстов для антологии компакт-дисков групп «Наутилус Помпилиус», «Аквариум», серии «Легенды русского рока».

On Kushnir (Кушнир, Александр Исаакович): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кушнир,_Александр_Исаакович

On 100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock (100 магнитоальбомов советского рока): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_магнитоальбомов_советского_рока

From the article:

"100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock is a book by Alexander Kushnir about rock music in the USSR with detailed information and the story of the making of the 100 selected cassette albums. The book is based on numerous interviews with musicians and people who took part in the albums' recordings, as well with writers, photographers and artists. The book was highly successful and received many favorable reviews."

"«100 магнитоальбомов советского рока» — книга Александра Кушнира о рок-музыке в СССР с подробной информацией и историей создания ста избранных магнитоальбомов. В основу книги легли многочисленные интервью с музыкантами и людьми, участвовавшими в записи альбомов, писателями, фотографами и художниками. Книга имела большой успех и множество положительных отзывов."

"Sweet N and Others" (Сладкая N и другие) (1980) appears fifth in the book chronologically, among three solo albums and one group (Zoopark) album by Mike Naumenko identified as among the 100 most significant Soviet rock albums. See also http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сладкая_N_и_другие

From "100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock" in reference to "Sweet N and Others":

...In conclusion, a few words about the album's main heroine, the semi-mythical Sweet N, to whom several compositions are dedicated and whose existence Mike long stubbornly denied "Sweet N is a stunning woman I'm madly in love with, but at the same time I'm not completely sure she exists in real life... But maybe she does look like the woman on the cover," Mike said in an interview with the Leningrad underground rock magazine "Roxie" several months after recording the album. In reality the source for the image of Sweet N came from the Leningrad artist Tatyana Apraksina, whom Mike had actually known since 1974. Outwardly interesting, with a magnetic inner world the charm of a fairy tale sorceress played by Marina Vlady, Tatyana was Mike's primary muse at the time.

"Mike would visit me on his own or with one of his friends, modestly comprising a small escort for "Aquarium," recalls Tatyana, whose artistic pseudonym was connected with her having lived on Apraksin Lane for much of her life. "Skinny, scrawny, big-nosed, eyes shining with good-natured curiosity, Mike was ready to take part in everything and be everyone's friend. Up to that time, he hadn't written a single one of his famous songs, although he already carried around a neatly kept notebook in which the foundations of future hits were being laid. Mike could take years to bring one song to fruition, from time to time jotting down a word, a phrase in the notebook, trying out different variations as if composing a mosaic, gradually editing the lyrics."

The kaleidoscope of associations that arose for Mike through four years of friendship with Tatyana and the sudden flare-up of a brief affair developed into the collective image of Sweet N. In many people's eyes, Sweet N became a symbol of the time, not least of all by virtue of the successfully chosen image — no less original than Vera Kholodnaya, and no less romantic than Blok's Beautiful Stranger. In one of his late interviews, Mike confessed the most "All my songs are dedicated to her..."

With the beginning of his marriage in 1980, Mikhail Naumenko was forced to revise his muse, although later he made many attempts to return to this discovery. During the "Sweet N" recording sessions at the Leningrad marionette theater, he wrote the compositions "Sweet N" No. 2 ("When I Knew You as Someone Else") and "Sweet N" No. 3 ("Bitter Angel"), and indeed, in a series of later songs, he repeatedly included this image in his lyrics.

As a major poet, Mike tried to avoid direct identification and biography in conveying the image of Sweet N. And only heaven knows how much the character of the abstract woman who appeared "on paper" corresponded to reality. "Who were you with, where did you spend the night, my Sweet N?" Mike sings. All this wasn't much like Tanya Apraksina, who initiated the breakup of the relationship with Mike on her own not long before the album's recording.

"As a real person, I no long meant what he invested in the new content of my image," says Tatyana. "As it happened, if I hadn't broken up with him, he'd never have become a star. That's for sure... There's a certain peculiar thing, which I think originated with the publishers of "Roxie" magazine. It was as if they censored whatever had to do with our past. Although later on Mike himself in his new songs spoke to me without contact with who I was."

Russian text: ...В заключение несколько слов о главной героине альбома - полумифической Сладкой N, которой посвящалось сразу несколько композиций и существование которой Майк упорно отрицал долгое время.

«Сладкая N - потрясающая женщина, которую я безумно люблю, но при этом я не совсем уверен в том, что она существует в природе... Но, может быть, она и похожа на ту - на обложке», - говорил Майк спустя несколько месяцев после записи альбома в интервью ленинградскому подпольному рок-журналу «Рокси». В реальности прообразом Сладкой N послужила ленинградская художница Татьяна Апраксина, с которой Майк познакомился еще в 1974 году. Интересная внешне, с притягательным внутренним миром и шармом сказочной колдуньи в исполнении Марины Влади, Татьяна была тогда основной музой Майка.

«Майк приходил ко мне в гости один или с кем-нибудь из друзей, скромно составляя маленькую свиту «Аквариума», — вспоминает Татьяна, чей артистический псевдоним был связан с тем, что большую часть жизни она прожила в Апраксином переулке. - Худенький, щуплый, с большим носом, с глазами, блестевшими добродушным любопытством, Майк готов был во всем участвовать и со всеми дружить. Ни одной из своих знаменитых песен он к тому времени еще не написал, хотя уже носил с собой аккуратную тетрадку, в которой закладывались основы будущих хитов. Он мог годами вынашивать одну песню, время от времени вписывая в тетрадку то слова, то фразу, прикидывая разные варианты - как бы составляя мозаику - и подвергая текст постепенной редактуре».

Веер ассоциаций, возникших у Майка после четырех лет дружбы с Татьяной и резко вспыхнувшего, но недолгого романа, развернулся как собирательный образ Сладкой N. В глазах многих Сладкая N стала символом времени не в последнюю очередь благодаря удачно выбранному образу - не менее оригинальному, чем Вера Холодная, и не менее романтичному, чем Прекрасная Незнакомка Блока. В одном из своих поздних интервью Майк выдал очень сокровенное и, пожалуй, самое главное: «Все мои песни посвящены ей...»

С момента женитьбы в 80-м году Михаил Науменко был вынужден ретушировать свою музу, хотя впоследствии не раз пробовал вернуться к этой находке. Еще во время сессии в театре кукол Майк записал композиции «Сладкая N» № 2 («Когда я знал тебя совсем другой») и «Сладкая N» № 3 («Горький Ангел»), да и в ряде поздних песен он неоднократно включал в текст этот образ: «Она спросила меня: «А как же Сладкая N?»/Запечатлев на моем плече финальный укус/И я ответил пространно: «Я влюблен в вас обеих/И меня так сейчас достал мой пригородный блюз».

Как большой поэт, Майк старался избегать в подаче образа Сладкой N полного сходства и автобиографичности. И только небеса знают, насколько получившийся «на бумаге» характер абстрактной женщины соответствовал действительности. «С кем и где ты провела эту ночь, моя Сладкая N?» Все это было не очень похоже на Таню Апраксину, которая незадолго до записи сама стала инициатором разрыва отношений с Майком.

«Я настоящая уже не значила для него то, что он вкладывал в новое содержание моего образа, - говорит Татьяна. - Получилось так, что если бы я его не бросила, он бы не стал звездой. Это точно... Существует некая странность, исходящая, по-моему, от издателей журнала «Рокси». Они как бы наложили запрет на все, что имеет отношение к нашему прошлому. Хотя и Майк впоследствии в новых песнях обращался ко мне, минуя меня».

LINK 2:

Vladimir Mak. "Apraksin Blues." Vesti (newspaper, Israel). November 29, 2012. В. Мак. Апраксин блюз. Вести (газета, Израиль) от 29.11.2012

http://www.nautilus.co.il/Pages/pgsPress/pgVmakPress.aspx?artID=753&menuID=6&srcPPack=ru,0,0

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesti_(newspaper):

"Vesti (Russian: Вести, "News") is an Israeli Russian-language daily newspaper. Based in Tel Aviv, the paper is Israel's most widely read Russian-language paper and its only remaining daily paper in Russian."

Translated excerpts from article:

In this article's title, you can hear the Petersburg underground. Here is Grebenschikov's "Mochalkin Blues," which the broad masses came to know through the film "Assa," but fans of "Aquarium" knew of six years before, and Apraksin Lane, by Nevsky and Apraksin Court. And Tatyana Apraksina herself is an artist and writer of literature whose sphere of interests extends from the underground Leningrad rock of the 1970s to Shostakovich and the composers of his circle and era, from Goethe to Okudzhava, from depictions of Leningrad courtyards to the landscapes of California...

Tanya Kachalina arrived in Leningrad while still in the first grades in school, and nine years later settled on Apraksin Lane. The name of the street at first became a pseudonym then her actual surname, which eclipsed the one she'd inherited... And so on Apraksin Lane lived Tatyana Apraksina — a painter and graphic artist, almost self-taught. In the mid-1970s her company consisted of rock musicians, Grebenschikov chief among them. Rather, it now seems that BG was the main person in this crowd... I think many were his equal... Despite all the admiration for Aquarium as a whole and Grebenschikov in particular, the most talented, I think, was Mike Naumenko, the founder and unchanging leader of Zoopark. Tatyana Apraksina was his muse starting in the mid-1970s; songs dedicated to her include "Sweet N," "If It Rains, "Your River's Blues" and "Morning for Two." In one of his interviews, Mike said all his songs were dedicated to her... Of course, an artist may tend to exaggerated, but there's a measure of truth in these words.

Tatyana's first significant artistic success came in 1984, when she completed a cycle of monochrome expressionist landscapes featuring abandoned buildings and courtyards in Leningrad. The exhibit, "Gaze from Within," hung at the Library of the Academy of Sciences, unexpectedly became popular and then less unexpectedly was shut down by the police on accounted of the "unofficial" character of the image of the "city from the courtyard side." The exhibit was moved to the House of Architects, and Tatyana became a consultant for a competition for the reconstruction of Apraksin Court.

In 1982 Tatyana met the harpsichordist Aina Kalnciema and namely here her path to classical music began. Rock started to suffocate her — repetitive lyrics, primitive music, any complexity leads to a total lack of comprehension by the mass public. And at that time...Mravinsky was conducting, as were Maris Jansons and Dmitriev; the astounding Bulgarian Chakirov often came to Petersburg, and the Philharmonic was headed by the legendary Ivan Sollertinsky's son, Dmitry Ivanovich. With his help, Apraksina began to attend rehearsals and create sketches, which were collected in 1984 at an exhibit at the Philharmonic. A year later, Sollertinsky proposed that Tatyana create a portrait of Shostakovich. In 1986 the work was ready. Apraksina bequeathed "Faces of Shostakovich" to the Leningrad Conservatory, and the painting was hung in Dmitry Dmitriyevich's former classroom. After Shostakovich the artist turned to two fantastic composers who were still living then — Alexander Lokshin and Moisey Weinberg...

Completely different interests lead the artist to the sciences. Apraksina began to explore the connections between the arts and sciences through philosophical studies; she started to publish the magazine "Athenian Class," amd in 1995 became the head publisher of "Apraksin Blues." Judging from the name, her old love of rock didn't fade. In the 1990s...artistic life in Russia was furiously active. Apraksina organized the festival "March Solo," took part in the Sollertinsky Festival, gave lectures, illustrated books, exhibited... In 1999 Tatyana came to America a second time, but this time established a settlement there — in the Santa Lucia Mountains in California. The same year, one of Apraksina's most significant literary works appeared: "California Psalms." The last decade has been very literary in Tatyana Apraksina's creative work. Books of poetry and memoirs on Lokshin are being released; "Apraksin Blues" is publishing American poets and writers...

Who is she, Tatyana Apraksina? A writer, an artist, a philosopher? That she's a striking personality is a undoubtable. But as for who this personality contains and when each side takes the lead — that's a question you'll have to ask her yourself.

VESTI. Non-stop. 29.11.2012

LINK 3:

Polevich, A. "The Musical Staff of Tatyana Apraksina." Anomalia No.4 (159), February 20, 1998. (Полевич А. Нотный Стан Татьяны Апраксиной. Аномалия No 04(159), 20 февраля 1998.)

http://www.pressa.spb.ru/newspapers/anomal/arts/anomal-159-art-7.html

Anomalia was a newspaper published in St. Petersburg from 1996-98. Complete electronic archives are maintained by pressa.spb.ru (http://www.pressa.spb.ru/newspapers/anomal).

A. Polevich is a journalist and a member of the Saint Petersburg Journalists Union.

Key sentences: "...Tatyana had no desire to attend the art-focused school on the Fontanka...and when the tormenting faculty decided to send her off to a regular school, she was even pleased. And until age 21 she never once picked up a brush or pencil...

Once Tatyana answered a posting at the Volodarsky Factory... The person who worked there...started teaching her to letter posters, exhibition stands, diagrams and so on. Then she had jobs at Palaces of Culture, stores and movie theaters. When the director at one movie theater insisted, "Draw only in gold on red!" her patience ran out: Tatyana gave notice and decided to quit her day job forever. It would be painting and painting alone...

Although she didn't play even one musical instrument, she loved and understood music. Tatyana felt an insurmountable attraction to instruments and love for those who coax divine sounds from them. She started spending four to six hours at a time at the Philharmonic for rehearsals of the symphony orchestra. The musicians grew accustomed to seeing her in the hall, then saw her works — and understood, and felt, and approved. The director even furnished her with a studio at the Philharmonic. And a first exhibit was held there...

One day one of the more influential people in the musical world, knowing Apraksina's work, made her a proposal: neither the Philharmonic nor the conservatory bearing Dmitry Dmitrievich's name have his portrait.

Say Apraksina, "I grew interested in everything connected with Shostakovich. The musicologist Mikhail Grigorievich Byalik introduced me to Shostakovich's relatives. The composer Boris Ivanovich Tischenko acquainted me with Shostakovich's music. Naturally, the painting's genesis came from music. Preparing for it took a year — then I painted the portrait in four days. After that I was sick for two weeks."

When Dmitry Dmitrievich's 80th jubilee arrived, the conservatory decided to acquire the portrait of Shostakovich, but offered the author such a meager price, due to lack of funds, that the artist followed the example of P. I. Tchaikovsky, who, having written the "1812 Overture" on a commission from Moscow and learning the sum he was to be offered, wrote in a letter that it was better for him to give an expensive gift than to sell cheaply... And at a grand ceremony by the light of photographers' flashbulbs, the painting was hung at the conservatory. This was in 1986...

The next year in Moscow the Kurchatov Institute hosted the first significant exhibit of T. Apraksina's oil paintings; later this exhibit moved to the Glinka Central Museum of Musical Culture, where Muscovites had a chance to grow acquainted with the Petersburg native's creative work for a whole month...

Then new times arrived. Windows and doors opened to all nations... The Art League of Chicago invited Tatyana Apraksina for a seven-month tour of eleven states in America...

Tatyana Apraksina's artistic canvases...live independent lives in America, in Europe, in Japan... Her "Borodin Quartet" hangs at the home of the famous cellist Valentin Alexandrovich Berlinsky, the portrait of Shostakovich moved from the conservatory to the office of the head of the Composers Union, Andrei Pavlovich Petrov...

Tatyana Apraksina has painted more than a hundred oil paintings and done hundreds of sheets of watercolors and drawings. She studied for four semesters at the Academy of Sciences' Oriental Institute...

LINK 4:

Kagan, M.S. Behold the Man… Life, Death and Immortality in the "Magic Mirror" of Fine Art St. Petersburg: Logos Publishing, 2003. P. 200.

Каган М. С. Се Человек… Жизнь, смерть и бессмертие в «вольшебном зеркале» изобразительного искусства. — СПб.: Издательство «Логос», 2003. С. 200

Extensive article on Moisey Kagan in Russian Wikipedia:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Каган,_Моисей_Самойлович: Моисе́й Само́йлович Кага́н (18 мая 1921, Киев, Украинская ССР, — 10 февраля 2006, Санкт-Петербург, Россия) — известный петербургский учёный, философ, культуролог...

"Moisey Samoilovich Kagan (May 18, 1921, Kiev, Ukrainian SSR —February 10, 2006, Saint Petersburg, Russia) was a well-known Petersburg scholar, philosopher and culturologist."

In "Behold the Man," Kagan writes: "the evolution of an approach already familiar from medieval art…the 'group portrait of a single person'…the great composer's personality truly emerges as a 'republic of subjects'… Painting here makes visible what A. Voznesensky formulated poetically… As a way to assess this reading of a contemporary personality at its real worth, this 'group portrait' could well be compared with the well-known portrait of Marilyn Monroe painted by A. Warhol."

LINK SET 5:

Lokshin, A.A. Genius of Evil / Apraksina, T.I. A Face That Had No Riddles (second edition, expanded). Moscow: MAKS-Press, 2005 (Локшин АА. «Гений зла». / Апраксина Т. И. Лицо, в котором не было загадок — [2-е изд., доп.]. — М.: МАКС-Пресс, 2005)

Myaskovsky N.Ya., Yudina M.V., Barshai R.B., Tischenko B.I., Apraksina T.I. and others. On the Composer Alexander Lokshin. Moscow: Dialog-Moscow State University Press, 1998. ISBN 5-89209-201-1 (Мясковский Н. Я., Юдина М. В., Баршай Р. Б., Тищенко Б. И., Апраксина Т. И. и другие. О композиторе Александре Локшине. — М.: Диалог-МГУ, 1998. ISBN 5-89209-201-1)

For reference only, an English translation of Apraksina's writing on Lokshin is available on Lokshin.org: https://lokshin.org/lokshin-life-apraksina-en.htm

Here is a link to Apraksina's portrait of Lokshin as cover art for a 2001 CD of Lokshin's Symphony No. 4 and Three Scenes from Goethe's Faust from Swedish firm Bis: http://www.bis.se/index.php?op=album&aID=BIS-CD-1156

and to the same portrait as cover art for a CD of Lokshin's Symphonies No. 5 and 9 from Russian firm Olympia: http://nnm.ru/blogs/19vitas72/lokshin-aleksandr-simfoniya-9-i-5-kvintet-dlya-strunnyh-2007-flac-tracks-lossless/

LINK 6:

Prazdnikov A. (director) "Consonance" (documentary film). Lentelefilm, 1989. RuData.ru Encyclopedia of Film database entry: http://www.rudata.ru/wiki/Созвучие_(фильм).

"Consonance" is a 1989 film about Leningrad in the works of the Leningrad artist T. Apraksina in consonance with the music of D. Shostakovich.

"«Созвучие» — кинофильм 1989 года. Фильм о Ленинграде в работах ленинградской художницы Т. Апраксиной в созвучии с музыкой Д.Шостаковича."

LINK 7:

Gladush, Natalia. "March Solo" with an Academic Face. Center for Cultural Studies, Department of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University. 1999

Н. Гладуш. «„Мартовское соло“ с академическим лицом.» Центр Изучения Культуры Философского Факультета Санкт-Петербургского Государственного Университета.

http://cultcentr.philosophy.spbu.ru/exibit90/ablues99.htm

Key sentences: "The week before Easter. This time the festival March Solo was dedicated to the 275th anniversary of St. Petersburg State University. Among the organizers were the Center for Cultural Studies, two divisions of the SPSU Department of Philosophy — ethics and the philosophy of culture and culturology, and finally Apraksin Blues...

As for the music and art... There were concerts by the orchestra "Saint Petersburg Camerata" conducted by F. Simmons (USA), Vermicelli Orchestra, songs and dances of the 13th to 15th centuries performed by Longa Brevis, the ensemble of Western European song and music Schola cantorum, the harpist Yana Sokolova, Ariadna Karyagina with the program "Parallel Voices..." The final chord on the last day of the festival was the solo program of the famous sitarist Sergei Gasanov, whose performance served as a guide to the country called "Traditional Music of the East"... Different styles, different instruments, different performers — there it is, syncretism in our real practice of the apprehension of art...

The exhibit "Age of Music" creates a strange impression: you approach a painting, see a face — and then it "comes to life," as a musician in the concert program performs a work, and you try to combine the two images: the one you see directly on the stage, and the one that Tatyana Apraksina saw with the inner vision of an artist."

"Неделя перед Пасхой. На этот раз фестиваль “Мартовское соло” был посвящен 275-летию Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета. В числе организаторов выступили Центр Изучения Культуры, две кафедры философского факультета СПбГУ — этики и эстетики и философии культуры и культурологии и, наконец, сам “Апраксин блюз”.

...о музыке и живописи. Какая была музыка... Концерты оркестра “Санкт-Петербург камерата” с дирижером Ф. Симмонсом (США), “Vermicelli Orchestra”, песни и танцы ХШ-ХУ веков в исполнении “Longa brevis”, ансамбль западноевропейской школы пения и музицирования “Schola cantorum”, арфистка Яна Соколова, Ариадна Карягина с программой “Параллельные голоса”... Завершающим аккордом в последний день фестиваля, дал сольную программу известный ситарист Сергей Гасанов, чье выступление предстало как путеводитель по стране, называемой “Традиционная музыка Востока”...

Разные стили, разные инструменты, разные исполнители — вот он, синкретизм в нашей реальной практике постижения искусства.

...о самой выставке “Век музыки”...странное впечатление: подходишь к картине, видишь лицо — а потом оно “оживает” — в программе концерта музыкант исполняет произведение, а ты пытаешься совместить два образа: тот, который видишь непосредственно на сцене, и тот, который увидела Татьяна Апраксина внутренним зрением художника."

Jmanteith (㊟) 6:45 4 February 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK the Kunashir source was always present. I find the Nautilus-based source, whatever its ultimate source, to be dubious. It's dated November 29, 2012; it's used to support information (e.g. year 1982) in the Russian version, but that Wikipedia information actually pre-dates the coverage (see here). Nautilus article follows the Wikipedia article very closely; this indicates article likely used the Russian language Wikipedia entry as a substantial source.

That aside, Russian-language Wikipedia entries don't indicate coverage of Apraksina in a reliable source; nor do link sets 4 (by Apraksina, not about her; do the other authors even mention the subject?), 5 (publications by Apraksina, not about her), 6 (a wiki), and 7 (Gladush is associated with Apraksina). Having worked with notable others doesn't help the subject WP:INHERIT notability. Having cover art or a permanent display at the Composers Union (a professional organization, not a museum) doesn't help WP:ARTIST without actual coverage of these facts. JFHJr (㊟) 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to read that wall of text. Simply give me links to three profiles of the subject (i.e., articles about her) in mainstream regional newspapers, and that's all we need, typically.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- LINKS --

LINK 1:

Kushnir, Alexander. Mike, "Sweet N and Others" - from 100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock. Moscow: Agraf, Kraft+, 2003. 400 pages. ISBN 5-7784-0251-1. (М.: Аграф, Крафт+, 2003. — 400 с. — ISBN 5-7784-0251-1)

http://www.rockanet.ru/100/17.phtml

Yes, the Kushnir article was always present, and represents a primary source (oft-cited on the Internet), just as its context, the acclaimed journalist's book, represents a primary source on the era and cultural movement described.

LINK 2:

Vladimir Mak. "Apraksin Blues." Vesti (newspaper, Israel). November 29, 2012. (В. Мак. Апраксин блюз. Вести (газета, Израиль) от 29.11.2012)

http://www.nautilus.co.il/Pages/pgsPress/pgVmakPress.aspx?artID=753&menuID=6&srcPPack=ru,0,0

The Vesti/Nautilus article's consonance with the content of the Russian Wikipedia article provides additional validation for the Russian Wikipedia article. The journalist has clearly consulted other sources in preparation for Apraksina's 2012 "California Psalms" readings in Jerusalem, as well as decades of personal experience of the cultural movements in question to verify the reliability, sense and significance of what his article reports. Indeed, certain information in the Russian Wikipedia article predated the associated citations to the Vesti article; this information was originally included in the Russian Wikipedia article as information verified reports on subject in other sources for which links are unavailable; citations were added retroactively as soon as a reputable news source made this information newly available online. Moreover citations of the Anomalia article don't currently appear in the Russian Wikipedia article. Because of dynamics of the evolution of press technology policies and technology itself, online press coverage for many of Apraksina's major exhibits is currently limited to secondary sources. Citations of print archives regarding her activities in California are available below. The Israeli Vesti article also aligns with the Russian Anomalia article, published 14 years before, although the author of the Anomalia article shows interest only in the aspects of Apraksina's biography connected with classical, not rock, music, along with her graphic arts training (likely a matter of taste comparing journalist Polevich to journalists Kushnir and Mak).

An associated link is also available via the Jerusalem Russian Public Library.

Kerner, I. Apraksin Blues in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Russian Public Library. (И. Кернер. Апраксин Блюз - в Иерусалиме Иерусалимская городская русская библиотека.)

http://jerusalib.3dn.ru/272/informacija_21-11-12.pdf

LINK 3:

Polevich, A. "The Musical Staff of Tatyana Apraksina." Anomalia No.4 (159), February 20, 1998. (Полевич А. Нотный Стан Татьяны Апраксиной. Аномалия No 04(159), 20 февраля 1998.) http://www.pressa.spb.ru/newspapers/anomal/arts/anomal-159-art-7.html This 1,250-word feature appeared in mainstream biweekly newspaper which published 59 issues (perhaps a long run for Russia in the 1990s) and remains available online in its entirety today. The article includes coverage of Apraksina's portrait of Shostakovich and its permanent display at the House of Composers. Also discussed in the article by Sagalov (see citation 2).

LINK 4:

Gladush, Natalia. "March Solo" with an Academic Face. Center for Cultural Studies, Department of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University. 1999 (Н. Гладуш. «„Мартовское соло“ с академическим лицом.» Центр Изучения Культуры Философского Факультета Санкт-Петербургского Государственного Университета.)

http://cultcentr.philosophy.spbu.ru/exibit90/ablues99.htm

As earlier stated, at time of writing in 1998, Natalya Gladush was not associated with Tatyana Apraksina. Much of Gladush's article for the Center of Contemporary Culture clearly reflects her own interests, detailing comments on cultural theory made by the editor of leading Russian literary journal "Zvezda" during Apraksina's "March Solo" festival. Beyond this, she succinctly and objectively conveys the festival's scope and format.

LINK 5 (replacing link 6, a Wiki):

Museum of Television and Radio in the Internet: Consonance. (Музей телевидения и радио в интернете - Созвучие)

http://www.tvmuseum.ru/card.asp?ob_no=3188

Annotation: The film describes the Leningrad artist Tatyana Apraksina, whose creative work was greatly influenced by the music of D.D. Shostakovich. (Аннотация: Фильм рассказывает о ленинградской художнице Татьяне Апраксиной, чье творчество испытало на себе большое влияние музыки Д.Д.Шостаковича.)

Screenplay: L. Efimov. Director: A. Prazdnikov. Cameraman: K. Vinogradov. (Автор сценария: Ефимов Л. Режиссер: Праздников А. Оператор: Виноградов К.)

-- RE: LOKSHIN --

Re: various works by Apraksina on Lokshin, note multiple citations of Apraksina's writing on Alexander Lokshin and portrait of Lokshin in discussions of the composer's biography:

berkovich-zametki.com/Nomer28/Bossart1.htm

froland.ru/lokshin.html

http://sviatoslavrichter.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2&start=15

www.peoples.ru/art/music/composer/lokshin/

http://www.classicalforum.ru/index.php?topic=1512.2230;wap2

http://culturavrn.ru/music/228

-- CITATIONS --

CITATION 1:

Kagan, M.S. Behold the Man… Life, Death and Immortality in the "Magic Mirror" of Fine Art. St. Petersburg: Logos Publishing, 2003. P. 200. (Каган М. С. Се Человек… Жизнь, смерть и бессмертие в «вольшебном зеркале» изобразительного искусства. — СПб.: Издательство «Логос», 2003. С. 200)

CITATION 2:

Sagalov, Z. "California Psalms." "Posrednik" newspaper, Philadelphia, Penn., March 5-18, 2003, No. 5 (88) Long feature profiling Apraksina. Text can be provided if needed.

CITATION SET 3 (U.S. regional press coverage; cited materials given below for reference):

3A. Gartshore, B. "Russian artist Tatyana Apraksina to read poems tonight." Monterey County Herald, Friday, November 17, 2000. 3B. "Russian poet to read at City Art." Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, Calif., December 15, 2000 3C. "New Frontier Poets." Monterey County Weekly Hot Picks, June 8-14, 2000 3D. "Tatyana Apraksina. Paintings and Poetry." Henry Miller Library Newsletter, May-July 2000. 3E. "From Russia to Carmel." Carmel Pine Cone, Carmel, California, USA, 2003.

CITATION 3A.

Gartshore, B. "Russian artist Tatyana Apraksina to read poems tonight." Monterey County Herald, Friday, November 17, 2000.

Poems growing out of nearly two years in Big Sur will be presented by Russian artist Tatyana Apraksina at 7 tonight in Irvine Auditorium at Monterey Institute for International Studies on a stage filled with her paintings.

Apraksina will present "California Psalms" in Russian amd her translator, James Manteith, will present them in English.

The program is co-sponsored by the Monterey Museum of Art and MIIS.

In St. Petersburg, Russia, Apraksina developed her painting skills by working with classical musicians, including the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and the Borodin Quartet. Ten years ago, she toured the United States with 70 paintings. She is also known as a philosopher and as publisher of a magazine which includes all of the arts.

It was her desire to retreat from urban life for new inspiration for her painting that brought her to Palo Colorado Canyon.

"When she came here, she discovered that to express what she found she had to start writing poetry," said Manteith, whom she had met in St. Petersburg where he was studying to become a literary translator.

"It's a huge poem of many different parts, all intertwined at many different levels," he said. "She headed off into the unknown and began working in a different genre."

When Manteith took her to Carmel Mission, "in Serra's cell, it was like a thunderbolt sent to connect her with Serra on a personal, emotional level," he said. "The same thing happened at Tor House, with her and Jeffers, and she writes about both."

CITATION 3B.

"Russian poet to read at City Art." Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, Calif., December 15, 2000

Russian poet Tatyana Apraksina will read with her translator on Thursday, December 14, 7:00 p.m., at CityArt Gallery in Point Arena.

Apraksina is known first and foremost as an artist who works with the subject of musical creativity. But she does not limit herself to easel painting and drawing or to the medium of representational art. She has authored an influential series of literary and philosophic works and has spoken regularly at festivals and academic establishments.

Apraksina returned to the United States in 1999, pursuing a new series of literary and visual projects, including the epic poem cycle "California Psalms."

CITATION 3C.

"New Frontier Poets." Monterey County Weekly Hot Picks, June 8-14, 2000

Ever wondered what an ode to the Big Sur Coast would sound like in Russian? Tatyana Apraksina comes to us all the way from her native St. Petersburg, adding poetry to her already long list of artistic talents. A painter and an editor by trade, Apraksina took the inspirational beauty of Big Sur to produce a series of poems entitled "California Psalms," dedicated to various "heroes" of the coast. Already acclaimed by reputable art critics including our very own Congressman Sam Farr, Apraksina, along with her English translator James Manteith, promises to present a dynamic and energetic artistic voice. Also reading from her poetry collection about using "elements of nature to explore human truths of loss, fortitude, wholeness, passion" is Santa Cruz poet Jessamay Howell. 7 pm. Cherry Center for the Arts, Guadalupe and 4th, Carmel. $7/door. 624-7491

CITATION 3D.

"Tatyana Apraksina. Paintings and Poetry." Henry Miller Library Newsletter, May-July 2000.

Staying amid the beauty of the Big Sur landscapes, an established master of the brush seized the pen, and found herself writing a mammoth work of verse. On Sunday, April 30 at 7PM, "California Psalms," which mark the poetic debut of Tatyana Apraksina, will be presented by its author and her assistant, James Manteith. This reading is the only one planned in Big Sur, the area which inspired it, and in which it was written.

Ms. Apraksina was first brought to prominence as an artist by a series of "city landscapes" representing St. Petersburg, Russia, her home for much of her life. Her interest in music led her to an early partnership with such noted ensembles as St. Petersburg Philharmonic and the Borodin Quartet. It was said of her that she was "the only artist who truly approaches canvasses like works of music." In 1989, having received a grant from the Soros Foundation, she traveled and lectured in the U.S. along with more than thirty of her paintings.

In addition to "California Psalms," a selection of Apraksina's recent artwork will be available for viewing at the time of the reading.

James Manteith studied Russian at Middlebury College and at St. Petersburg State University. He is the translator of much of Apraksina's work.

CITATION 3E.

"From Russia to Carmel." Carmel Pine Cone, Carmel, California, USA, 2003.

Tatyana Apraksina, Russian artist and poet, was granted a U.S. visa for having "extraordinary ability in the arts," thanks to the help of Rep. Sam Farr. She was honored congressionally for her "potential to exercise great influence on the world's understanding of [the American] landscape."

Apraksina has had numerous solo exhibitions in her hometown of St. Petersburg, as well as Moscow, Leipzig, New York, Baltimore and San Francisco. Her oils and pastels use a theme of classical music, as exemplified in the painting shown above inspired by J.S. Bach's "Mass in B Minor." Her pastels are now on view at the China Art Gallery. Dolores near Seventh, Carmel by the Sea.

Jmanteith (㊟) 2:33 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete I copied the above wall of text into word and it told me there were 8,218 words. At which point I promptly decided cannot read all of that especially in its format. I conducted my own WP:BEFORE check in place and it revealed Google News void of hits and Google Books largely dominated by poetry collections where her poems were included. No WP:SIGCOV about the poet herself. As such it did not seem to meet WP:CREATIVE -- BUT if an admin is able to read through the above text and discover she has been the subject of multiple and reliable publications then you may discount my !vote as successfully countered. Mkdw ^talk 00:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- LINKS AND CITATIONS --

Kushnir, Alexander. Mike, "Sweet N and Others" - from 100 Cassette Albums of Soviet Rock. Moscow: Agraf, Kraft+, 2003. 400 pages. ISBN 5-7784-0251-1. http://www.rockanet.ru/100/17.phtml

Vladimir Mak. "Apraksin Blues." Vesti (newspaper, Israel). November 29, 2012. http://www.nautilus.co.il/Pages/pgsPress/pgVmakPress.aspx?artID=753&menuID=6&srcPPack=ru,0,0

Polevich, A. "The Musical Staff of Tatyana Apraksina." Anomalia No.4 (159), February 20, 1998. http://www.pressa.spb.ru/newspapers/anomal/arts/anomal-159-art-7.html

Gladush, Natalia. "March Solo with an Academic Face." Center for Cultural Studies, Department of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University, 1999. http://cultcentr.philosophy.spbu.ru/exibit90/ablues99.htm

Kerner, I. Apraksin Blues in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Russian Public Library, November 2012. http://jerusalib.3dn.ru/272/informacija_21-11-12.pdf

Museum of Television and Radio in the Internet: Consonance (documentary on Tatyana Apraksina, Lentelefilm, 1989). http://www.tvmuseum.ru/card.asp?ob_no=3188

Fedoseev, A. "Blues on the Theme of Deserts and Fields of Relevance." Snob magazine, Aug. 8, 2009. http://www.snob.ru/profile/7003/print/5250

Jacobson, R. "On Hearing the Poet Read in Her Native Russian. For Soviet expatriate Tatyana Apraksina, inspired by her California Psalms." The Pedestal Magazine: The Political Anthology, 2004. http://www.thepedestalmagazine.com/gallery.php?item=1225

Askerov, Eldar. Tatyana Apraksina. Music in the USSR magazine, Moscow: VAAP-Inform, summer 1987.

Askerov, Eldar. Tatyana Apraksina. Musical Life magazine, USSR Composers Union and Ministry of Culture, summer 1987.

Tatyana Apraksina. Soviet Union magazine, Moscow, June-July 1987.

Kagan, M.S. Behold the Man… Life, Death and Immortality in the "Magic Mirror" of Fine Art. St. Petersburg: Logos Publishing, 2003. P. 200.

Sagalov, Z. "California Psalms." "Posrednik" newspaper, Philadelphia, Penn., March 5-18, 2003, No. 5 (88).

Gartshore, B. "Russian artist Tatyana Apraksina to read poems tonight." Monterey County Herald, Friday, November 17, 2000.

"Russian poet to read at City Art." Independent Coast Observer, Gualala, Calif., December 15, 2000

"New Frontier Poets." Monterey County Weekly Hot Picks, June 8-14, 2000

"Tatyana Apraksina. Paintings and Poetry." Henry Miller Library Newsletter, May-July 2000.

"From Russia to Carmel." Carmel Pine Cone, Carmel, California, USA, 2003.

Jmanteith (㊟) 8:17 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I might as well weigh in, since I actually read this whole entire thing. This article and related articles seem to have COI problems. The nominator is right. -Haikon 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above is provided for those who require thoroughness. Otherwise, these below three citations should completely satisfy Milowent's request for three profiles of the subject in mainstream regional newspapers (periodicals are equivalent, I'm guessing):

Askerov, Eldar. "A Source of Inspiration." Profile of Tatyana Apraksina. "Music in the USSR" magazine. USSR Copyright Agency, V/O Mezhdunarodnaya kniga, The USSR Union of Composers. Moscow: VAAP-Inform, January-March 1988, p. 72-73.

Askerov, Eldar. Profile of Tatyana Apraksina. Musical Life magazine, Moscow: USSR Composers Union and Ministry of Culture, summer 1987.

Profile of Tatyana Apraksina. Soviet Union magazine, Moscow, June-July 1987.

All of these magazines had national distribution; two had international distribution. It was historically significant as a benchmark of glasnost that an artist outside the "system" and with roots in the underground received this level of coverage; previously any coverage at all would have been out of the question. These citations should have been present in the original article, and can now be added, as the magazines are in the collections of a variety of major university libraries internationally.

Jmanteith (㊟) 3:22 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Holy TL;DR, Batman!!! Sufficient sources are contained in the mind-numbing wave of text above for a GNG pass. COI issues may exist, but content is generally even-handed and informative. The encyclopedia is better off with the piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not notable She doesn't pass wikipedia:ARTIST and the mainstream sources aren't really about her except for announcements. I agree problems with many sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.48 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikipedia:ARTIST, all five criteria appear to be met to a sufficient extent. 1) Peer recognition: The article establishes the recognition of the subject by top-ranking peers in the area of her art's specialization, classical music, and in general by an intellectual elite, by the mid-1980s and thereafter. 2) Subject of or expert source for major publications: "Music in the USSR," "Musical Life" and "Soviet Union" were mainstream magazines either for the artist's specialty area, classical music, or representing the nation as a whole, internally and internationally. The subject served as an expert source for a key publication on the genesis of aesthetically significant Russian rock music, as well as for significant publications on the composer Aleksandr Lokshin. 3) New concept, theory or technique: The individual nature of the subject's visual approach to music is noted in most art-related sources. 4) Multiple independent periodical articles: A wide range of source citations is provided, as is production information for a short documentary film produced on the subject by reputable Russian TV production company Lentelefilm. 5) Significant exhibitions, critical attention, collections: Citations reference solo exhibits held at the top symphony concert hall in St. Petersburg, a top scientific research center and the national museum of musical culture in Moscow, a central historic hall at St. Petersburg State University, and throughout the U.S., beginning in the 1980s, a period when the exhibit of any Soviet artist abroad was in itself a significant event in the face of political obstacles. Major Russian art critic Moisey Kagan asserts the subject's notability, as does literary critic Sergei Glovyuk, while profiles in "Music in the USSR" and "Musical Life" endorse the artist's work, despite her unaffiliated, semi-underground status. The subject's work is represented in the permanent collection of St. Petersburg's House of Composers, affiliated with the St. Petersburg Conservatory. The House of Composers, based since 1948 in the former mansion of Princess Gagarina, is effectively a museum, functioning as a cultural center for regular public concerts and art exhibits, in addition to housing significant permanent collections and archives from Russia's musical history. http://www.spb-composers.ru/ http://www.spb-composers.ru/history.

Jmanteith (㊟) 7:57 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Джеймс Мантет (talk • contribs)

"Effectively a museum" is questionable. I don't think a painting on a wall in a symphony hall is a permanent exhibit in a museum. I think it's clear you've vastly overstated her impact and the significance of her work and where it's displayed. That said, I don't see WP:42 because there aren't multiple (different from each other, independent of the subject) reliable sources giving in-depth coverage from which we could put together an encyclopedic biography without the benefit of WP:IKNOWIT or WP:TRUE. JFHJr (㊟) 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep much per Carrite. Sufficient references among that wall of text, including what seems to be a movie about her. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the movie? If you're referring to this, (Consonance), a non-wiki source would actually show the film's significance. This source indicates it's 12 minutes long. Am I missing the film you're referring to? I'm afraid it's been puffed to the point of misrepresentation by Jmanteith. It's not exactly seminal coverage, especially as films go. JFHJr (㊟) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 13 minutes. :-). True, it's no "Citizen Kane", but it is dedicated to her. And the other items aren't huge either, but there are a number of them, from several countries, over a span of years, that aren't trivial (not the ones from the US, unfortunately, those are 1-liners "local poet to have a reading", which is trivial). I think between all that, together, they cross our notability line; though I can see why someone might think otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as per GRuban, the exact point is to look at everything together, and simply to read carefully and without prejudice. The article itself is not a wall of text, and regarding WP:IKNOWIT and WP:TRUE, every significant statement in the article is clearly identified as originating in a published, verifiable source. Participants in this discussion with Russian-language knowledge or Google Translate skills can confirm this. Every detail mentioned was regarded by an independent journalist as significant. Referring to even a more limited array of articles than cited here would be enough to construct a basic biography through any of the given publication dates. As for WP:42, regarding source variety, reliability, independence from the subject, the sources obviously vary by content, and the allegations questioning reliability and independence for the decades' worth of citations are unsupported, along lines of WP:JUSTAPOLICY, and unproductive as concerns the actual article.

Regarding allegations of inflation, the article is evenhanded and informative as per Carrite. Yes, the independent sources themselves frequently codify their own or others' appreciation of the subject's work; the Wikipedia article does not reference this material, however. The article is written with a view to countering WP:SYSTEMIC_BIAS, a stated Wikipedia aim. This discussion should adhere to WP:Assume_good_faith, and efforts to maintain a tone in keeping with this policy are appreciated.

Yes, the film is short, but is dedicated to the subject, as GRuban notes, and moreover is an official production of a non-commercial state broadcasting company for national broadcast. Authorizing participants include an internationally acclaimed symphony orchestra — the orchestra most closely associated with the composer (Shostakovich, widely viewed as the greatest Russian composer of the Soviet period) whose work is used in the film. As do other sources, the elements of the film testify to a sufficiently high level of peer recognition. Even a shorter film would represent a significant source in this respect.

As GRuban notes, the Russian-language sources are indeed more substantial than the English-language sources (although "Music in the USSR" and "Soviet Union" were published in English among other languages). However, the U.S.-based English-language notices further substantiate the subject's creative biography, as well as acknowledgement of her notability in the U.S. geographic area in which she wrote work also noted in other countries and in her own language base as significant. These articles and notices describe readings and exhibits at major venues (Monterey Institute of International Studies and Henry Miller Library are in particular known internationally, while partner organization Monterey Museum of Art is the major regional museum), and in all cases indicate an attitude of esteem for the subject as a notable foreign arrival, on the part of the reporting press source and of peers and cultural organization in the area.

Again regarding the holding of the subject's artwork at the House of Composers in St. Petersburg, JFHJr's distinction between a museum and a concert hall (which as noted includes museum space) appears groundless and unsupported. The subject's work concerns musical thematics, and the hall itself is central to the history and legacy of the artwork's subject, thus the artwork's place in this permanent collection supports peer recognition in harmony with the context of cultural monuments, as with the "Consonance" film and other sources.

The factors here in sum, taken as no more, but also no less, than stated, would indeed appear to carry the subject beyond the line for Wikipedia inclusion, as indicated by Carrite and GRuban, and can perhaps now be accepted as such by others such as Milowent and in an admin decision.

Jmanteith (㊟) 21:09 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Джеймс Мантет (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zwerdling[edit]

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

The individual has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectual independent of each other and independent of the subject. Tobias555 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known reporter, winner of multiple awards, article has sources about them already. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources which are reliable, intellectual independent of each other and independent of the subject. All I see is that the majority of the links provided in the article are primary sources, and several are non-RS. Tobias555 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known indeed, and it's not obvious what is wrong with sources. Does Current (newspaper) for example have some secret connection to Zwerdling, or is the reasoning that no medium can be a non-primary source for a media figure? Sparafucil (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that current.org qualifies as a reliable source, where are the other "multiple published secondary sources"? Tobias555 (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. It's sure tough to sift coverage of Zwerdling (like [11], [12], [13]) from the bazillion stories he's filed in more than 20 years of award-winning national journalism but it's clear that the sources exist which is sufficient to prove notability for our purposes. - Dravecky (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find it off that this nomination was made by a brand-new editor whose very first edit was an improper speedy deletion tag on the article in question then sending it to AfD. While I'm always glad to see new editors jump in with both feet, such single-purpose and familiarity with intricate Wikipedia functions (but not WP:BEFORE, it seems) is unusual. - Dravecky (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just doesn't have a radio. I just learned there's a term ("lapsus clivis") for what happens when D and F keys are adjacent. You seem otherwise very on the game! Sparafucil (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll have to remember lapsus clivis, I actually meant 'off' in the sense that things are 'a bit off' with this editor. I guess 'odd' would have worked there as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like somebody involved with Fort Carson who has a bone to pick with Zwerdling. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I am indeed an SPA, and there was no intention on my part to pretend otherwise. For reasons I cannot disclose, I chose to remain anonymous in this debate, however, as you can see I have nominated the article in good faith and in good faith would like to withdraw this nomination based on the comments made by Dravecky. The evidence that Dravecky has produced is sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. I regret the inconvenience that may have been caused to other Wikipedia editors in the course of this discussion. Thanks all. PS: I have nothing to do with Fort Carson. Tobias555 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VRS - same reason I declined the speedy tag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 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} 07:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Agee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No major roles - almost always uncredited. No major awards. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. No evidence that he's particularly respected or highly regarded or innovative as an actor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of Google hits on name, the only one that is this guy is IMdB, which is not WP:RS. Fails WP:BLP policy for referencing as well as WP:NACTOR. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all roles being uncredited fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage in reliable sources fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our N requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article and does not meet WP:NACTOR. It largely seeks inherent notability because he's had limited roles in movies where a notable actor has had a leading role. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 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 speedy delete. Based on user's other contributions, deleted as a hoax under G3. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity-Falls[edit]

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

Film script written by the user who posted it; apparently only published here and on a Wikia for horror movies. See also Article Wizard/Anaconda. InShaneee (talk) 08:48, 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 redirect to Dowry law in India. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law Relating to Dowry Prohibition Cruelty and Harassment[edit]

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

Non-notable legal reference work. InShaneee (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article advertises a lawbook that covers dowry law in India. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is a likely search term, or that it should be tagged with ((R with possibilities))? This doesn't strike me as a good candidate for redirecting. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I figure that when a new article like this is made, it's because somebody didn't find what they were looking for. Whatever else, somebody who could put their finger on this text could use it to improve that article. I generally figure this is good enough for a redirect. The book itself probably is too arcane to be notable; then again one of these days I should start an article on Blakemore on Prohibition. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:16, 14 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. Deleted by User:Sphilbrick under G12, copyvio. (Non-admin closure)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 Tezpur[edit]

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

Unable to establish notability. Andrew³²⁷ 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew³²⁷ 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As well as being very WP:POV the present text is from the subject's website. I've flagged it as CSD G12. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Copyvio and can't establish notability. - Shudde ^talk 10:34, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal team[edit]

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

This seems like a list written as an article. In either case, it fails both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage that discuss this topic or grouping. The various teams identified in the article are never talked about in sources across different sports as a single group, nor is the term "ideal team" used in English in this context. While the grouping might make sense logically, until reliable sources talk about the grouping, this is WP:OR. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about a neglected topic. Good faith discussions to salvage this article at Talk:Ideal team showed it would be worthwhile to continue the talk here at AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this term WP:OR? If you mean Dream team, All-star team or All-League team then move the article. If this is a foreign language term (the refs seem to be in foreign languages) find a better word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Dream team, All-star team, All-League, All-Time, and All-Decade, etc. have very specific meanings, but this article tries to group those different concepts together when no sources have ever done so.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The problem is that I don't think a common all-encompassing term exists for this concept. I would agree that it's OR to decide to group these and title them in this way. As I said on the article talk page, I don't envision users looking for this page - certainly not with this name. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:OR to me. References are in another language, so hard to tell. Assuming good faith, it's probably not a good fit for English Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and listify. I agree the phrase "ideal team" is a neologism, they are commonly called All-Star Teams (in North America, at least). As such, List of All-Star Teams could have value. Reso lute 15:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"All-Star team" typically refers to one that participates in an All-Star Game. The AfD article seems to be OR for "all-star teams" that never play in an actual game. Still, its entry criteria is unclear. How does Gold Glove Awards or Silver Slugger Award qualify when they are not the best overall MLB players, but rather the best offensive and defensive players, respectively. What about List of San Diego Chargers 50th Anniversary Team or 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team, which are teams composed of top players? I dont see how WP:LSC can be met without some contrived, long-winded explanation that is never discussed in sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "All-Star Team" have long had multiple uses. i.e.: NHL All-Star Game, which you refer to, but also NHL All-Star Team, which is the concept that this article attempts to discuss. Baseball doesn't really have a parallel, choosing instead to create different teams for offence and defense. There is a loose fit there, but not precise. The San Diego Chargers' 50th anniversary team would fit the scope, imo, as it is a "mythical all-star team" (how the first NHL All-Star teams were described by the press), simply using a different time scale. (incidentally, "List of San Diego Chargers' 50th anniversary team"? That is some awful grammar!). I do get your point, however. There would be a challenge finding material that ties the overall concept together. Reso lute 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Set index articles are appropriate for describing terms that have the same name, such as anything with "All-Star team" in it. Mixing in other teams that dont have "All-Star" in their name is inappropriate without reliable sources that discuss them together. As it is, there alreay exists articles for All-star and All-star game. The concept of an All-Star team should be mention in one of those, probably All-star, not with another standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support renaming the article to "All-league", it seems a good translation of "equipo ideal" and an actual English term. "All-star team" and "Dream team" are different concepts, so I oppose using those titles. About notability, it doesn't fail WP:LISTN because it's not an arbitrary list ("list of actors named Brian who like pizza"), but an article about a concept, with some examples of it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: NaBUru38 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is not the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD and thinks it is silly to point out who created it to the closing admin, as if the comments made by the creator of the page should mean any less. --Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul: The practice is standard per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator...or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." ((Page creator)) specifically exists for this purpose.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't oppose creating articles/lists on "All-Star" or "All-League," but I would say my sense is that this article is trying to roll all of those (possibly with other items like All-Time teams) together into one concept. Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that "all-time" and "all-decade" teams are the same thing. The only difference is the time period the all-star team is being picked from. Dream Team is a different concept, however. Reso lute 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a list at all, so WP:LISTN is the wrong measure. But I would argue that the topic fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not organized as a table or a bullets list, but I would argue it is a list. The opening paragraph is an unsourced, arbitrary definition of the grouping based on OR. It doesn't explain how the "ideal team" concept started, it's history, or pro and cons arguments of such teams. It is merely an enumeration of "ideal team" examples across various sports. In any event, notability—either LISTN or GNG—is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trying to roll all of those together into one concept", because the concept is just one, as Resolute says. The article "doesn't explain how the "ideal team" concept started, it's history, or pro and cons arguments of such teams", I agree, so please expand it. I just began writing it, other Wikipedians can help to expand it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR....William 15:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR WP:NEO – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. And throw in some WP:NEO. oknazevad (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. You can't just translate something and expect it qualifies for an article. Articles already exist as mentioned in this article, I imagine anyone wanting to know the "dream team" would go to the dream team article, and so on. C 679 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ideal team is not a thing. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. I am not aware of the term "ideal team" used in any major sport, at least not in North America, which is a major portion of the article. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba's nomination. Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (absence of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources) and the specific notability guidelines for lists, if in fact it is a "list," per WP:NLIST (absence of substantial coverage in multiple, indepdendent, reliable sources that address the subject as a group. I also have many of the same concerns regarding original research per WP:OR and synthesis per WP:SYNTH that other editors have mentioned above. Bottom line: the term "ideal team" apparently does not have widespread usage or meaning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be WP:OR, and could be because I'm North American, but I've never heard anyone use the term before. Zappa O Mati 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete Not that I think this AfD needs another !vote but this could have been speedily deleted out of early consensus after the wave of February 7th deletes. The article duplicates the fundamental idea of an All-star team and does not provide any sources for what is seemingly original research. Mkdw ^talk 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not snow delete yet, the two keep commentators do have a valid arguement, and I think that article is salvageable. I rather prefer a move, delete the WP:NOR violating redirect and rename as All-Star team or a similar term, which I think this article was meant to be in the first place. Secret ^account 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from keeping a few trivial mentions of All-Star teams, it really doesnt matter much if the article is moved or just started from scratch. Removing NOR material wipes out most of this, and the few sources cited only provided WP:SYNTH material anyways. While this article might not stay, NaBUru38 seems to have spurred a possible void in WP regarding coverage of general All-Star teams.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and NEO. Sorry, there's just nothing here. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 14 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} 07:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Tchekanine[edit]

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

Seven year old stub article fails notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMotorsport as Japanese Formula 3 is a junior development series, not professional. Only reference is to a statistics database which does not prove notability. --Falcadore (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cybervoron (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notbable. Unable to find anything on google to establish notability, no reliable references. - Shudde ^talk 10:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 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} 07:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akitsugu Matsunaga[edit]

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

Seven year old stub article fails notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMotorsport as Japanese Formula 3 is a junior development series, not professional. Only reference is to a statistics database which does not prove notability. --Falcadore (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cybervoron (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After much searching, I was finally able to find some Japanese records on this driver. Here is the JAF database record on him, which only lists him active in 2001. Further searching finds that he switched to kart racing after that, without much success. Fails WP:GNG.Michitaro (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Only source is a statistics site? No significant coverage in reliable sources? The next Sebastian Vettel or Takuma Sato he isn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:40, 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 Doctor Who fandom . MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced and only routine coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure members have great fun at bi-weekly meetings, but I can't see how this could be considered notable. Stalwart111 08:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

according to the article half its members are from outside NZ. So is everything done through a Facebook page? LibStar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered about that. Are they like an ANZ chapter or something? Not sure. But I don't think it matters if they don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 10:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ANZ = Australia-New Zealand, for all you Northern Hemisphere types. Stalwart111 10:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doctor Who in Australia has a section on the Australian Doctor Who Fan Club (indicating that club probably isn't notable). There is not an equivalent article on New Zealand, but this could probably be merged to Doctor Who fandom if it's worth saving. But it's not itself a notable topic as far as I can see. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add or Merge to my vote on the basis that it goes to Doctor Who fandom where the club is already mentioned. As good a solution as any where an article on the club itself is not warranted. Stalwart111 03:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - nothing to warrant its own article, unless they turn into Darleks and ravage the planet. NealeFamily (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No need to have an article on a fan club. Wikipedia isn't used to house notes on a fan club on everything. That's what a blog or website is for. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Don't merge, as that would violate wp:v; the article text lacks the necessary RS refs, and has been challenged for that reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 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} 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kovačev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. I contested my PROD procedurally since it had previously been PROD'ed for essentially the same reason. This does not affect the validity of the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has existed for years without any sign of being able to satisfy the GNG. I initially proposed the article for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 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 Cumberland County Schools. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hall Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary school. Zero refs. One EL. Tagged for zero refs and being an orphan since 2009. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage, and it certainly does exist. Merger of the wholly uncited text was suggested half a decade ago; no action was taken. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per long-standing consensus to Cumberland County Schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No indication that this elementary school might meet notability guidelines. Redirect to district articel per Cullen. RadioFan (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree per Cullen. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumberland County Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 22:26, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of What's My Line? mystery guests[edit]

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

Unsourced list of celebrities who appeared on What's My Line?. The list is not notable in and of itself and falls under WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 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} 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is not notable and provides no encyclopedic value whatsoever. - Mr X 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As much as I enjoy the TV series, I don't think this list is particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon guests, all of which closed as "delete". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If something gets press coverage, such as particularly famous or important guests (the Pope) or widely-commented-upon occurrences (maybe there was a fight, or someone chose the show to make their big comeback following their reported death, maybe the Pope again) that should be mentioned in the main article on the show, but this is trivia. Do we need a list of every celebrity appearance on every TV show? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abrantee boateng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abrantee boateng (2nd nomination)

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

This article was recreated after the deletion discussion for DJ Abrantee, which was deleted and salted (Abrantee Boateng was also deleted under G4 as a recreation of DJ Abrantee). The user recreated the article again, and its prose is substantially identical to DJ Abrantee, but I wasn't comfortable G4ing it because they did add some references (and lack of those was the problem brought up in the last AFD). Most refs are to random websites for promotion of musicians, or youtube, or other sites with no claim to reliability that I can see. But one goes to the guardian.co.uk and another goes to the London Evening Standard which seems legit. I offered to userfy this for the author and help them work on it but no response in a week and a half. I did a Google search to see if I could turn up any reliable sources to add but no luck there. I think he's got the potential to become notable after a little more coverage but there's not enough written about him yet to have a verifiable article, so delete. delldot ∇. 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am not clear of the status of Choice FM, but it appears to be a broadcast station. If so, I would expect its daytime presenters to be notable. If kept, REname to Abrantee Boateng - correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 7 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, Courcelles 00:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this salt-evading title as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 14 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:34, 14 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. Thanks goes to Mark viking for his work on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility triangles[edit]

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

This page was originally created at AFC (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mobility Triangles). The author copied it to article space before the submission had a chance to be reviewed. The submission has since been declined for WP:NOTESSAY. The current article seems to differ from the declined AfC only in terms of minor copyedits. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have my own reservations against the article and I am more inclined towards a delete for the nonce. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 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} 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that "Mobility triangle" is a notable concept in criminology and that an acceptable Wikipedia article can be written on this topic. The current article does not meet our minimum standards, as it is more of a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. So ~~Delete~~ unless the article is totally rewritten during this process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote and stubified the article so that it is cited, with four references, of which at least three are peer reviewed (unsure about the Burgess ref). It is no longer essay like, and my complete ignorance of the subject assures that there is nothing original in there. Hopefully it provides a nucleus for an article on this topic. The multiple references indicate to me that the subject is notable and the WP:NOTESSAY problem is gone, which suggests that this article could be kept. In rewriting, I think the original essay has a lot of good information; the content just needs to be summarized, properly cited, and made more encyclopedic in tone. --Mark viking (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the excellent work done by Mark viking to transform what was poor quality work into the beginnings of an actual encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. There is no shortage of sources, and indeed the original article provided plenty. Being essaylike is not a good reason for deletion: it's a reason for rewriting. Well done Mark Viking; there is scope for incorporating more of the sources into a fuller article. GA, FA, who knows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after commendable efforts of Mark viking. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per fantastic work by Mark viking, suggest a snow close now. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article could obviously be expanded, and could use more secondary sources, but rewrite has clearly fixed major problems. - Shudde ^talk 10:44, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La CF Rodolphe Hottinger SA[edit]

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

Dalils WP:ORG. No claims to notability read like a company prospectus until much of the worst puffery was removed. No reliable refs - just a self made promotional PDF and a proof that it exists. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 31 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} 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the content, such as it is, replicates that on the biography at Rodolphe Hottinger down to the rather twee picture of him with his grandfather: perhaps appropriate to the biographical article, not to a company article. Nor is the geneological material, nor a picture featuring him at the NY stock exchange 3 years before the company that is subject of the article was founded. No solid indications that the firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standby Equity Distribution Agreement[edit]

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

Yorkville Advisors, a major subject of this article, has requested deletion per OTRS Ticket#: 2013012210009343, statiing in their request that: "a Wikipedia page created describing the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement and it has been used as a place to post potential defamatory information about our firm that had no connection to the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement." The issue might be resolved by deleting the section which refers to the company requesting deletion. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK as this is really nothing more than an attack article targeting Yorkville Advisors, and its executives, who have been accused of some misconduct. As the case has not been decided, and there is a presumption of innocence, this article in its current form is entirely inappropriate and a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see that the concept itself has recieved much coverage beyond, x and x entered into an SEDA. The company names and exec names all circular redirect to the article, ensuring searches for the LPs in question will direct to the article. Obviously an attack page. Stalwart111 07:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but scrub and, as necessary, revdel. GNews, GBooks, and GScholar all turn up nontrivial uses of the term, which may be arcane but not inconsequential. The concept appears covered in a standard reference work[14]; perhaps an editor with access to a law library can help out a bit. I'm also more than a little dubious about the weasel-wording of the request to OTRS. "Potential defamatory information"? Right now the article is mostly a summary of rather serious SEC charges (civil, not criminal, so the presumption-of-innocence rule doesn't apply) brought against Yorkville, apparently described accurately though at excessive length, and an overdetailed account of related court proceedings. This stuff likely doesn't belong in this article, but it's legitimately newsworthy and might well be valid in better form in a different article, whatever the motivations of the original posters might have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been an SEC lawsuit filed against Yorkville Advisors. It is mentioned in the "Standby Equity Distribution Agreement" entry that Yorkville Advisors pioneered the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement. However, the lawsuit filed against Yorkville Advisors has nothing to do with the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement and therefore the "Fraud Case" section should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.210.90 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but scrub and, as necessary, revdel. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:Please note that the last post has a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; http://extremetracking.com/vdf011.htm?barbjhwk&&20%20Jul,%20Tue,%2014:52:19,,38.105.210.90,,38.105.210.90,,YORKVILLE%20ADVISORS%20LLC,,North%20America,,United%20States,,us,,New%20Jersey,,Jersey%20City,,Cable/DSL,,ie7,,MSIE%207,,xp,,Windows%20XP,,1280x1024,,32%20Bit%20(16.7M),,Enabled,,,,,,,,30,,35 - The unsigned IP of the prior posting looks to resolves back to the company that made the request. Merge the data about the case into a page on Yorkville. I did contribute legal facts Wikipedia:Citing sources to the story as per Wikipedia:Be bold but it evolved out of the Hedge fund page under 8. Debates and controversies "8.5 Overvaluing assets " but another user moved it here to this page for some reason. --WPPilot 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I am also somewhat skeptical of the OTRS request. But the contract itself seems to have no real notability; it's one of many investment vehicles created over the course of recent decades, and of course it will appear in a handful of reference books; not sure whether such appearance merits each such vehicle a separate article. ~~The SEC lawsuit may be notable, but if it is notable, it belongs in Yorkville Advisors itself; finding all of this at this title does give weight to the coatrack argument.~~ - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yorkville Advisors redirects to this article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 9 different "related" BLP names and alternate company names redirect to the article in question. The effect being that if you search Google for any of those people, this article (with the tenuously related "bad stuff" they have done) will be in the top couple of results. Stalwart111 05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is to be any coverage on this, it should be in articles on the subjects concerned, not in this mess of a coatracks. If the company and/or individuals are notable of course. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm seeing mostly passing mentions, with one possible magazine article exception. I don't see WP:GNG being clearly met for the article topic. (Even if the concept turns out to be more notable than I believed, it will be a lot more practical to delete and write a neutral, non-COATRACKED article than it will be to fuss through examining a precise set of specifics.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 15 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jannot[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable, apart from being a (former) chief editor of two magazines, and did assorted things for other magazines. Also, the person who created this article is named "Rjannot." Possible conflict of interest? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 7 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, Courcelles 00:09, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Organic Conversation[edit]

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

Fails to meet requirements of notability guideline and would require rewriting to remove promotional content. Most references are from the people who created the show; the article has one independent reliable source in the article[15] which only has one paragraph about it and suggests it may become notable, other than that, a search only finds mentions of the show. Peter James (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about this show depsite the number of references provided in the article. They just verify facts for the host profiles. The article is also written in a promotional tome, and indeed, a significant portion has been lifted and slightly reworded from copyrighted websites. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdi[edit]

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

Deletion request by article subject per OTRS Ticket No. 2013020510011496; article is written like an advert, violating WP:NPOV; questionable notability of subject Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless we can get a better explanation of the subject's concerns. He has been a professional stand-up comedian for several years, and seems notable to me. Problems with the article can be addressed through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the history of the article is dominated by the removal of content by an SPA. Having been unsuccessful, we get an OTRS ticket asking for deletion. But there seems to be plenty of coverage, unless I'm missing something? Is this a matter of a notable person not wanting to be? Stalwart111 07:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article is well sourced and the subject is notable. If the subject has specific concerns, they should be addressed directly, rather than through deletion. —Rutebega (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Hill Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge on non-notable road. Dough 48 72 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas River in a section on "crossings", unless sources are found (many rivers already have such lists of the crossings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Again, not a highway bridge. Not notable. –TC N7 JM 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While "every bridge in the state" need not have an article, every bridge over a significant waterway, which the Kansas River is, is likely notable. References: [16], [17], [18], [19], ~~[20]~~, ~~[21]~~, [22]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources two and three are trivial coverage, sources four and seven are the same story, and sources five and six are from Ohio, nowhere near the Kansas River. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stupid bridges having the same name in different states! That's why I shouldn't try to find sources at 6am... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 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 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Bushranger's sources get this one past the GNG, barely. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:03, 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 no consensus. NPASR Courcelles 00:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenmuseum.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Previous afd got only one response, and so was 'keep'. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Weak keep, per WP:NONPROFIT, they support environmental artists all around the world and information about them and their activities can be verified by [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27]. Nimuaq (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:04, 16 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, Courcelles 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note Nimuaq's comments above, but think that for me this is probably an example where it is a small organisation with a claim to internationality that isn't international in scale, per WP:NONPROFIT. There was the passing mention by Grayson Perry in the Times, but it was no more than a passing mention as far as I can see - so I can't support keeping this article, but no prejudice to reinstating if more widespread coverage is received. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly, I don't think there are more sources out there. If the founder of the museum had a separate article, I would support merging it to there, but unlike WP:CORPDEPTH which requires significant coverage, WP:NONPROFIT only requires multiple, third-party, independent and reliable sources. In any case, I can see your point about the phrase "international in scale", which is stated in WP:NONPROFIT as:

"Caveat - Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international. Example: a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not "international in scale" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live".

This might be a case of "members living in separate countries", so I'm no longer sure if we can say that the scope of their activities is international (or even national) in scale if its just a blog-type website whose members can send pictures of their art. However, there are still multiple independent sources about it, so it might meet WP:GNG. Nimuaq (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage including several of the sources noted by Niumaq as well a 2002 profile in Whole Earth[28], and quite a few references at GBooks and GNews that suggest that this is recognized as a significant resource for environmental art.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:59, 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 03:08, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 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 Incubate. Article is now at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Heart of Nowhere (Album). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Nowhere (Album)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:NALBUM apply here, specifically the following: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". Redirect and merge content to main artist article: Noah and the Whale for now. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT SHOULD NOT BE DELETED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaigh (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Conaigh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Incubate - It didn't even come out yet. All of their previous albums are clearly notable so I'm pretty sure this will have notability once it comes out. Incubation is the only choice I can see making sense. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - Per Mrmoustache14, since the group's previous albums were all notable, it is reasonable to assume that this one will too. But it's WP:TOOSOON to know for sure. Currently, the article is in a position where it could easily be improved in the future when more sources pop up. I support incubation fully. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I AGREE - INCUBATE AND WAIT UNTIL THE ALBUM IS OUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaigh (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 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 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - if we're happy to userfy and the author is happy to hold and resubmit, why not? A good solution I think. Stalwart111 08:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate despite the shouty comments by the original creator, this album will almost certainly be notable on release, and the basics of the article are good quality. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deletion proposer: I was not aware of incubation until this deletion discussion. Having reviewed it I think that, yes, incubation is the way to go in this case. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paxico Road Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge on non-notable road. Dough 48 72 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas River in a section on "crossings", unless sources are found (many rivers already have such lists of the crossings). Preserving this information fits with Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, but there's no point in having a 2-line article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would not be opposed to a merge, but the lack of references to prove, well, anything is what bothers me. –TC N7 JM 11:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:14, 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 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike most of the other bridges that got nominated at the same time, I can't find any coverage of this one. I suppose bridges like this are why not all bridges are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:22, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morse Street Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge. Dough 48 72 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas River in a section on "crossings", unless sources are found (many rivers already have such lists of the crossings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about a random 2 lane highway bridge, which does not enjoy inherent notability. If refs exist to satisfy WP:N then identify them. Edison (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable bridge; no valuable information. –TC N7 JM 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that AFD you did not provide an argument as to how that bridge satisfied the notability guideline. Edison (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did not. I provided a comment about how easy it is to nominate a shitload of articles simply claiming it "appears" to not be notable. I then proceeded to prove the bridge at that article is very well likely notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement contradicts itself. Either you proved its notability or you didn't. –TC N7 JM 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I improved that article to show notability, editors will review the changes if they want.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I still fail to see notability. The mere fact that a bridge has references to prove when it was built and how much it cost to build it doesn't prove notability. Others may disagree. –TC N7 JM 22:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. I misinterpreted WP:N for a second. I guess the references are okay. –TC N7 JM 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, my vote on that article still remains a delete. It really isn't noteworthy. –TC N7 JM 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can go to the state library in Topeka and find more sources, as my brief foray unearthed so many sources on the Eudora Bridge I was quite surprised.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As to this bridge, it seems the proper name is the Sardou Bridge, the current span dating to 1961. See [29], named after Sardou family [30]. The first Sardou bridge dates back to 1899, was destroyed in 1903, rebuilt and destroyed again in the great 1951 flood.[31][32]. At the 1961 dedication, Charles Sardou's great-grandson George Robert cut the ribbon.[33]. Surely this content belongs somewhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources discovered by Milowent above, which (barley, but that's enough) demonstrate notability for this crossing of a significant waterway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milowent's sources are enough to indicate notability here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:09, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-32 Turner Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge. Dough 48 72 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highway bridges are not inherently notable. If there are refs to satisfy WP:N, they should be provided. Edison (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every single bridge in the state of Kansas needs a page. –TCN7JM 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing that there should be. There probably should be an article on every bridge over the Kansas River, though, as it is a significant waterway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Kansas River is a significant waterway, yes, but not every bridge over it is significant or has wide enough coverage to be notable. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 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 01:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bridge does seem to have generated a fair amount of news coverage; see here, here, and here, though sadly all 3 stories are behind a paywall. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move Keep per the above statement and sources, but the common name of the bridge is the Turner Bridge and not the K-32 Turner Bridge Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 17:51, 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) 19:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

222nd Street Bridge[edit]

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

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge on non-notable road. Dough 48 72 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no references and merely asserts that the bridge in question exists. There is no "inherent notability" for every bridge which someone states exists or once existed. Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If multiple bridge articles have been nominated, perhaps that is a result of someone creating multiple articles about non-notable bridges, rather than a demonstration of inappropriate action by the nominator. Edison (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Also, half of the bridges in this bulk deletion are not highway bridges. –TC N7 JM 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see Ks0stm has nominated a crapload of related bridge articles for deletion. Perhaps a better treatment could be had if KsOstm wants to be prepare an article on Crossings of the Kansas River, perhaps 20-40 hours would be sufficient to do that really well (ideally with a map listing by number all the bridges as well), then we can consider whether a few of these should redirect to that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that help establish notability for this or the other bridges I nominated? I was not aware that nominating several for deletion or the existence of a Crossings of the Kansas River article were relevant to whether or not they are notable, which is the reason I nominated them for deletion. (Note that this is more towards the other nominations, and that I note your comment below was for this one). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting you to write that article, it seems it would be a valuable addition to the project. I don't see you suggesting the content has no place on Wikipedia, just that you don't believe individual articles are appropriate for whatever reason. Its easy to serially nominate articles for deletion, of course.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why that article would be notable, to be honest...it's a short river, not even the longest in Kansas. I wouldn't consider articles over Arkansas River or Smoky Hill River/Republican River or Verdigris River bridges to be notable...I'm not sure why I would find such an article for the Kansas River notable. It just seems almost like an excess of detail...Ninth Street, the main street in my hometown, has had a fair amount of local news coverage, but I still would consider an article about it to be excessive. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas River#Crossings might be suitable - provided the size didn't reach that necessating a WP:SPINOUT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition to my general Keep directly above, please note that I just spent some time working on this article. The history of the bridge is frequently reported on. I question whether the proper name should be "222nd Street Bridge" because I can't find sources calling it that, Eudora Bridge might be better, starting the article "The Eudora Bridge over the Kansas River ..." to avoid confusion. Perhaps the Kansas DOT has an official name someone can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion from afar, and I feel that I have to reply to this comment. "Eudora Bridge" wouldn't be any better of a name. Only one of the references added to the article uses a proper name for the bridge, #8 calls it the "Eudora Kaw River Bridge". If the article remains, that's probably the name that should be used. But the fact that the other seven articles can't be bothered to refer to the bridge by name indicates to me that it lacks notability.

Also, the fact that a local newspaper includes a historical tidbit whenever they cover a construction project doesn't really confirm notability to me either. I think that's pretty standard for any local newspaper and local bridge. -- 97.113.8.146 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficent sources to establish (barely) notability for a crossing over a significant waterway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milowent's new sources clearly show notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing in article appears to reach WP:GNG. There's a paywalled The Hutchinson News article on the 1962 ice damage [34], and a 1917 paywalled mention or more from that same paper as well--this is assuming the predecessor bridge is in the article scope, of course. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:50, 14 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jingjiang Lonely Hill[edit]

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

Article appears to fail WP:NGEO, although my Chinese is a bit rusty. Andrew³²⁷ 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your Chinese being "a bit rusty" is not a valid pretext for anything. 2) However, I note that the highest natural elevation in the immediate vicinity of the town of Gushan, at 32°03′50″N 120°18′11″E / 32.0640°N 120.3031°E / 32.0640; 120.3031, registers at a mere 25 m. in Google Earth, not the 55.6 m. this tourist site claims. 3) If more sources, and coordinates, can verify the existence of this hill, then demonstrably we have what is the highest point in Jiangsu west of Nantong, north of the Yangtze, and south of Lianyungang, which is rather notable. GotR ^Talk 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guideline leans toward inclusion with "...presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable..." so now that it has references, kindly provided by Vmenkov, makes a claim for notability by its nature, and is a notable site in the culture, I !vote keep on this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not as tall and famous as Denmark's lofty Himmelbjerget, Gushan (a.k.a. Lonely Hill) is apparently the only natural "prominence" on the otherwise very flat Yangtze Delta alluvial plain for something like 100 km in every direction. With a bit of forest and a temple on top, officially designated a "scenic Area" (孤山风景区), it apparently is one of the few natural [such as it goes, anyway] attractions that Jingjiang can boast of. (Pretty much everything else around it are fields or residential/commercial, as Google Maps satellite view, and probably Google Earth too, show). There are photos of it at the city government site ( http://www.jingjiang.gov.cn/jingjiangweb/detail.aspx?categoryid=7b66e7e9-bec4-472e-a252-aab01d016ca6&infoguid=18a279f0-6d85-4b17-9763-bf394484da98&parentcategoryid=7b66e7e9-bec4-472e-a252-aab01d016ca ), and it certainly mentioned often enough on Chinese web sites dealing with the area's tourist attractions: https://www.google.com/search?q=靖江孤山风景区 . At the same time, the article can benefit from a fair amount of copy-editing. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:03, 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} 07:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Šiškov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced BLP. This remains valid since playerhistory has gone dead. More importantly, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT and Mr. Siskov has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP without clear notability. —Rutebega (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A copy of the playerhistory page in question can be seen here, and it shows that he has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTY . Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 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} 07:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Levine[edit]

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

Non-notable indivudual lacking ghits and ghits of substance. Article references are examples of the work product or blog entries. Awards are minor in nature. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Notability PhantomTech (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing at HighBeam, Questia, or Gale (publisher) except for 162 words in Popular Photography v73 i5 (May 2009), describing how photo Broken Robot Girl was done, with Rob Sheridan. Not enough to meet WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST etc. There's a different Tamar Levine at Tel Aviv University with some publishing--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC) credits.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 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} 07:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Ure[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sufficient sources to establish the notability for this BLP per WP:BIO. Andrew³²⁷ 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Only sources are primary ones. No notability established. --Man way 02:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. As a secondary school educator, WP:PROF is not implicated. Ray^Talk 16:25, 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 merge to Gabrielle Giffords. Courcelles 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Responsible Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just doesn't seem to be a notable organization. Only one paragraph for the article too. However, if the article is not deleted, it should be merged or redirected to Gabrielle Giffords. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gabrielle Giffords. Organisation doesn't appear to have coverage outside of the coverage of Giffords, but "Americans for Responsible Solutions" is still a plausible search term. IgnorantArmies 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organization is not notable enough for wikipedia and doesn't receive significant coverage. I am also not opposed to merging the article to Gabrielle Giffords's page should the article not be deleted. IronKnuckle (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gabrielle Giffords - I can see this being notable some day (especially given the direction of the current debate) but I don't think it's there yet. Stalwart111 09:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. May become notable in the future. Meanwhile, I would not be opposed to merging with Gabrielle Giffords, as it seems that the membership is limited to Gabby and her husband at present. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect, insufficient significant coverage of the organization for the subject to be considered notable per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. That being said, the founder of the subject is highly notable in and of itself. Until the subject is highly notable independent of the founder, the article should be summarized, merged, and redirected to Gabrielle Giffords.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Gabrielle Giffords per RightCowLeftCoast. Coverage falls short of WP:GNG & WP:ORG, but there is some coverage and the subject is clearly relevant in relation to Giffords. No prejudice against re-creation of article if significant coverage expands to meet notability threshold in the subject's own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Dance Database[edit]

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

This website does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. A comment in the page's history requests that it not be deleted because it links to a template. I've never seen that type of request before, so check the history before voting. Andrew³²⁷ 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew³²⁷ 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Marked as db-web. There is no credible claim to significance in the article. GB fan 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a one-sentence stub with no notability. No worries about the template that uses it, I've nominated that for speedy deletion too. —Rutebega (talk) 01:23, 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.