< 12 July	14 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meagan Good . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue dress of Meagan Good[edit]

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

I think it is too soon for such an article, although I can see where - if coverage continues beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT - this may be notable enough for a mention in the Red carpet fashion of 2013 article when that is created. Although we have several articles on individual dresses, they have demonstrated notability through receiving continuing coverage, citations and references beyond the original media attention over their first appearance. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and while I can see that coverage could potentially endure, it is possibly too early for an article dealing with a dress that was only worn a few weeks ago (although it is reasonably nicely written). Mabalu (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would note that I am a strong supporter of fashion coverage on Wikipedia, and personally, I LIKE the article and would be delighted to see it restored further down the line once enduring notability is demonstrated. Mabalu (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would support a merge/redirect to Meagan Good for the time being, rather than outright deletion. Mabalu (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Meagan Good. It would be best covered (at this time) in her article. If/when it does garner more criticism, we can always un-redirect it. It's just a little too soon at this point in time for an article, as there isn't really that much media buzz about this when you get down to it. Enough exists for a mention in her article, but not so much for an independent article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a fashionista, but this seems to have buzz to me. What do I know though. I am far from my comfort zone with this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. there are a lot of other sources that I have not included:
- I could expand it a little.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - O.K. I have beefed it up a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still sort of feel that it's a bit too soon for this to have an article. There is buzz, but the coverage so far is still fairly small when you get down to it. When it comes to coverage, you have to compare it to things such as the Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez and Black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley. So far this hasn't received the coverage or attention that previous dresses have. It might, but that'd be WP:CRYSTAL to assume that it will. This is just far too soon and the coverage so far isn't enough to merit its own article, as it's too soon to really show that this coverage is in-depth enough to merit its own article. Dresses are really the sort of thing that are almost impossible to show immediate notability for. Even Kate Middleton's engagement dress took the better part of a year to really show notability for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed the Daily Mail source. The problem is that the Daily Mail is really just a tabloid along the lines of the National Enquirer when you get down to it, and it's not even usable as a reliable source for things such as this. I couldn't even use one of their book reviews to source an article either, so that's sort of how unreliable of a source they're considered to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a mostly general consensus that we can't really use the Huffington Post as a RS as well, for various reasons. This one looks relatively good, but I usually try to avoid using them as a source in general nowadays because when it comes to sourcing, their site is usually considered to be non-reliable. I've never been given a truly concrete reason for this, but it usually runs along the lines that the site is considered to be a bloggish-type site when you get down to it. Sources from the HP are greatly depreciated, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tokyogirl has summed up many of my concerns here. It doesn't matter how many current references there are - we need to see continued coverage in several sources at least several months after the occasion of its wearing has passed to demonstrate that it has made a lasting impact, and is still remembered. Fashion coverage on Wikipedia is not one of our strongest points, and articles such as this give the impression that ANY dress that receives more than passing attention at the Oscars, Grammys, or wherever, should have an article made on it, which sets a dangerous precedent. Many created individual dress articles have since been merged into general red carpet fashion articles for their relevant year. Two recent AFDs that are relevant here, for dresses that were worn rather longer ago and due to having received ongoing coverage over the following years, were demonstrated to be notable enough to keep. (I voted keep on the yellow dress based on coverage, but remain to be convinced that the silver one is notable enough for a standalone article - something its creator agreed with me on!) - Note User:DGG's very valid comments in both.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett

TonytheTiger, it's not that I'm saying we don't need articles on individual dresses - it's that it is simply way too soon for this particular one to have an article. If, in six months time or a year it is still receiving ongoing discussion and analysis, then yes, the article could be argued to be appropriate, but at this point, it's too soon. Mabalu (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what would be wrong with having a dozen dresses from each oscar season have articles? The ones that show up on a bunch of best (or worst) dressed lists that season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is a relevant tangent for the AFD, so will keep brief - maybe best for talk page? Simply being mentioned on a list would probably not demonstrate notability - but being discussed in depth, argued over, and most importantly - still being talked about years afterwards - would be notable. Red carpet fashion in 2008 mentions at least two dresses that would probably pass notability for individual articles - Swinton's black toga dress and Paltrow's trompe l'oeil dress - but IMO, they are sufficiently covered for now on the page they're on. Let's debate this on one of our talk pages in more depth if you like, keep this AFD focused. Mabalu (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the individual. I've re-read my previous comments referred to here, and expand on them: What has to be notable is the dress itself, not that the otherwise unremarkable dress was worn by a particular person, unless that person's wearing of the dress, becomes itself of encyclopedic significance. Dresses worn at X occasion can be a perfectly good article, so can dresses worn by a particular person-- in either case if that is the focus of the notability of the group as a whole. And certainly a dress itself regardless of who wears it can be notable, if it enters the collection of a major museum, like any other work of pure or applied art. But the notability here is not the dress , or the occasion, but apparently that the person wore it in a manner not characteristic of some aspects of her personal life, in which case it's part of the notability of the person. The sources are unreliable for notability of any one costume: they tend to cover all costumes of the occasion, or all costumes sensational in some manner, such as being particularly revealing. "Sensational" is not encyclopedic notability but tabloid importance, and the reason for deprecating the HP on subjects like this is that its coverage is in some respects that of a tabloid. (The reason for deprecating it in some other contexts is that its news reports might be inadequately edited, or excessively resemble editorials). This is consonant with my previous opinions. We need to be very cautious in extending notability to objects associated with famous individuals, They can indeed become of iconic significance, but this take a considerable time to establish. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the likelihood of a the dress by a non-notable (no WP article) designer making a museum collection is probably pretty low. It is not clear why this is not a dresses worn at X occasion or a dresses worn by a particular person. This subject is partly notable for the wearer's status as a preacher's wife, but is partly notable for her presenting the Best Gospel Artist award. The proposed DYK hook (Template:Did you know nominations/Blue dress of Meagan Good) for this subject probably reflects the proper emphasis. The Witherspoon dress was similarly notable for her personal situation as the What Ryan dress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). The Legend of Zorro 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamaprasad Mukherjee[edit]

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

Only claim made in this article for notability is the subject is holder of Centenary Professor of Statistics. I do not think the position is high enough to give the professor defacto notability. The Legend of Zorro 22:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. My attempt at calculating an h-index only came up with h = 10 (probably Indian publications were not well-cited in his early career). On the other hand, I think we have a clear WP:PROF #5 for his named chair, and the award presented by the Indian Prime Minister satisfies WP:PROF #2. The subject is clearly a major figure in Indian statistics, as well as internationally (President of the Association of Asian-Pacific Operational Research Societies from 2001-2003). I find this nomination incomprehensible. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to the GScholar results because my search seems that my results I am not getting results about any statistican. I note that the two awards may indicate notability but they are not the offical award (which is Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize) presented by the Indian Government. The Legend of Zorro 06:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried this GS search, which might not even get all his publications. And, while I'm not familiar with the "P.C. Mahalanobis birth centenary award," being (according to the news story in The Hindu) awarded by the Indian PM suggests a high level of national importance within India. This guy is far more notable than many US professors that have been kept at AfD in the past. -- 202.124.88.18 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, there are many individuals who are much less deserving of having an article than this man. SOXROX (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon searching a bit more sources and per the comments withdrawing nomination and closing this AFD. The Legend of Zorro 19:02, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Dea (actor)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable. Beerest355 Talk 22:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His body of work is just too small and unnotable. Time to call it O'Dea. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strog Delete Completely unnotable actor right now. If he ever does anything, then it could be revisited but not now. SOXROX (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he had two ongoing roles in regular TV series: Todd Ross on Blue Heelers and Red O'Malley on The Saddle Club (24 episodes total over seasons 1 and 2), barely enough to keep per WP:ACTORBIO. If this is not kept, I suggest a redirect to List_of_The_Saddle_Club_characters#Recurring_Characters so that it will be cheaper and easier to give a refund later. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call his brief Blue Heelers role notable. Three episodes? Out of 510? Beerest355 Talk 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, when you talk about WP;REFUND, you are talking about a person who could potentially become more notable. I'm not seeing this with him. His roles were 2002-2004 and he doesn't seem to be active anymore. SOXROX (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Clarityfiend's arguments.Completely non notable actor. Finnegas (talk) 14:53, 17 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Marriott[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a non-notable actor. Beerest355 Talk 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Simply not notable. SOXROX (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gong show 12:44, 20 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Griffin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT as a one-time murder with no lasting repercussions - it was reported in the media and discussed on some talking head shows for a bit, and then dropped when the next "crime in wartime" story broke. Google shows lots of news reports but no actual lasting effects. I PROD'd it earlier today, but the article creator immediately deprod'd it; so I figured it couldn't hurt to AfD. TKK ^{bark !} 20:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a significant assassination covered by AP and New York Times, with connections to Iran. It is almost certainly a terrorist attack, a battle in the war against terrorism, and part of a pattern of seemingly random shootings of American soldiers and contractors, some in the US in the case of Fort Knox and Little Rock and Fort Hood. Battles in wars always are worth noting in an encyclopdia, it is not just a local robbery or murder story if it shows up in Fox News and Tehran Times. It does not deserve to buried as this is a very notable event, and it was noted. An event does not have to have a continuing series of conspiracy theories or anniversaries such as the JFK assasination to be notable. People try to use ONEEVENT to censure lots of terrorist attacks all the time, it's not meant be be used to delete events of international importance, or deaths of Americans who gave their lives in support of the war against terror. Redhanker (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources:

Afghan bomber attacks near major US base bigstory.ap.org › Afghanistan‎ Dec 26, 2012 - 25, 2012, the Interior Ministry said a policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, who shot and killed 49-year-old Joseph Griffin in Kabul on Monday ...

Afghanistan says policewoman who killed US adviser is Iranian ... www.guardian.co.uk › World news › Afghanistan‎ Dec 25, 2012 - On Monday, the policewoman identified only as Sergeant Nargas shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, in what was the first ... Afghan Police Women Kills US Contractor - Canadian Content Forums

forums.canadiancontent.net/.../113435-afghan-police-women-kills-us.ht...‎ Dec 26, 2012 - 1 post - 1 author On Monday Nargas shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Georgia, in what has become a trend of insider attacks by Afghans against their foreign ... Mansfield Newswire (Page 2) - Topix

www.topix.com/wire/city/mansfield-ga/p2‎ Dec 27, 2012 - 20 posts - 3 authors The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia , on Monday, in the first such shooting by a woman in the ... Afghan policewoman who shot US official is Iranian, mentally ...

www.indianexpress.com/news/afghan-policewoman...is.../1050226/‎ Dec 26, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... Afghanistan: Woman Who Killed American Is Iranian | Military.com

www.military.com/.../afghanistan-woman-who-killed-american-is-iranian...‎ Dec 26, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... Insider woman is Iranian - This Ain't Hell

thisainthell.us/blog/?p=33373&cpage=1‎ Dec 25, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... US Police Mentor Joseph Griffin killed in Kabul shooting ... - Zimbio

www.zimbio.com/.../Police+Mentor+Joseph+Griffin+killed+Kabul‎ Dec 25, 2012 - 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, from Mansfield, Georgia, was shot and killed ... His killer was a policewoman identified only as Sergeant Nargas, an ... Afghan policewoman involved in the latest green-on-blue attack ...

www.smartwar.org/.../afghan-policewoman-involved-in-the-latest-green-...‎ Dec 24, 2012 - ... attack in December, an Afghan policewoman named Nargis shot and killed an American contractor named Joseph Griffin in Kabul.

My Way News - Afghanistan: Woman who killed American is Iranian apnews.myway.com/article/20121225/DA3CRLUG2.html‎ Dec 25, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... View Entire Story - World - FOX News

world.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=26264&content...1‎ The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a woman in the ... Afghan bomber attacks near major US base - York Dispatch

www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_22260588/websubscribe‎ Dec 26, 2012 - 25, 2012, the Interior Ministry said a policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, who shot and killed 49-year-old Joseph Griffin in Kabul on Monday ... Bomber, 3 Afghans killed in suicide attack at US base - News

news.msn.com/.../bomber-3-afghans-killed-in-suicide-attack-at-us-base‎ Dec 26, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Ga., on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... Afghanistan: Woman who killed American is a native Iranian

www.kypost.com/.../Afghanistan-Woman-who-killed-American-is-a-nati...‎ Dec 25, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Ga., on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... Afghan bomber attacks at gate of major U.S. base - Tehran Times

www.tehrantimes.com/.../104437-afghan-bomber-attacks-major-us-base‎ Dec 26, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ...

www.delawareonline.com | Printer-friendly article page www.delawareonline.com/print/usatodayarticle/1791483‎ Dec 26, 2012 - The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ... Afghan bomber attacks near major US base - Boston.com

www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/12/26/afghan.../story.html‎ Dec 26, 2012 - 25, 2012, the Interior Ministry said a policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, who shot and killed 49-year-old Joseph Griffin in Kabul on Monday ... Afghan official: Policewoman who killed U.S. contractor is from ...

www.pashtunforums.com/.../afghan-official-policewoman-who-killed-u-...‎ Dec 25, 2012 - 6 posts - 4 authors The policewoman, identified as Sgt. Nargas, shot 49-year-old Joseph Griffin, of Mansfield, Georgia, on Monday, in the first such shooting by a ...

Delete Absolutely no long-standing coverage. I like how the sole keep arguments discredits the claim that this article fails WP:NEVENT by providing lots of sources - that were made December 2012. Beerest355 Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails EVENT like so many other senseless killings over there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:EVENT SOXROX (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:EVENT. Also note that many of the cited news articles are actually just syndication of the same two or three, at most, original articles via multiple Web-based news outlets. Syndication, even widely, does not make a story notable, sad as this story is. — Dwpaul (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - If it is such a notable story, why does the article here consist of only two sentences, of which one consists entirely of speculation without sources? Is that really all that is known about this incident? Could nothing more in the way of facts be gleaned from those many articles cited above? — Dwpaul (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not that notable; fails WP:EVENT (WP:ROUTINE). See also WP:MURDEROF. Ignatz mice•talk 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am very sorry for his family's loss, at such a senseless crime. However, the ongoing consensus here at WP is that only the most famous murders, those getting national attention for more than three days, are included here. All the sources you found were published over a three-day period. Even the killings of otherwise non-notable people can become notable later on, see Murder of Kitty Genovese and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. If his killer is ever tracked down, it would likely become notable, and then we could re-create the article. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Trocki[edit]

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

No independent verifiable info found that confirm the notability or even existence of this alleged musician. I blanked the unreferenced text with numerous credits so high I suspect a hoax (or at least a blatant self-promotion) by several single-purpose accounts. - Altenmann >t 05:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find this part-credit and name-check but not sufficient for WP:NMUSIC. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I reviewed the older version of the article before the removal of text; it's a pile of unreferenced namechecks. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 16 July 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 Tshe. Merging can be done from the history of this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ћ[edit]

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

I noticed this article due to an RM discussion ... but before we determine what to call the article, I think we need to reach a consensus on whether we should have an article on the topic in the first place. I have to question it. The topic seems to be about a very recently coined logogram (a neologism?) that received a brief flurry of news attention on the day it's creator suggested it. It seems extremely premature for us to have an article about it. An acceptable alternative to deletion might be to userfy until we have some evidence that this symbol is being seriously considered. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm a little torn about this one. On the one hand, it has 11 sources, but on the other, it seems to have literally just been "invented." Meaning, it's probably too soon to see if this will actually go anywhere. Personally, I think that at the moment it should be turned back into a redirect to Tshe. ALH (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are eleven citations, they were all published within a week of each other, all over the last ten days. It's a neologism, notability is not temporary, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. (Gee, I wish there was a single character that encapsulated all those ideas.) Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and see if it grows... Technical 13 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is deleted, then it should be recreated as a redirect to Tshe, because the glyph is that letter, that was usurped by the meaning used by this article (as documented in the references in the article.) It still is the Serbian letter. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should go without saying that this discussion pertains only to edits after this one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore original redirect to Tshe. The Mathis logogram is not really notable, in spite of a brief news spike (see WP:NOTNEWS). -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment up until 2013, this redirected to Tshe, so deletion should take that into consideration, if it is to be redirected back to Tshe, by deleting the revisions from 2013. Userfication should also take that into consideration, by only moving the 2013 revisions into userspace. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how Paul Mathis can be said to have "created" a symbol that already existed, anyway, so it's not clear to me that this article really has a distinct subject from Tshe. It seems more accurate that Mathis suggested using a symbol that we already have an article on (Tshe), for a purpose we already have an article on (The). And the suggestion itself seems not to be a notable one. -- 202.124.88.18 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply comment. If you read the article, it can be seen that Mathis only noticed after creation that his symbol was the same. Mat ty.007 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the source (news story) says is "Mathis concedes the likeness, but insists he was a long way down the road on his project before he became aware of it. Over lunch in his city eatery Henry and the Fox, he shows me the preliminary sketchwork for "th" on his iPad, and there are lots and lots of iterations. Does it prove the chronology? Perhaps not, but for what it's worth I believe him." -- not quite the same thing at all. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't "create" something that already exists, in spite of what this story suggests. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy. I am in favour of keeping this, it has received remarkable coverage for such a new thing, and it is quite possible that it will catch on. However, if I am outnumbered, as currently appears likely, I will move this into my sandbox and see what happens. Mat ty.007 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is said on Wikipedia:Notability (events)] that " In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)". There is a source from Time, and many other major news sources. Mat ty.007 10:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point.... this is a good example of why we need to actually examine the sources and find out what they say about the topic, and not simply say "look, sources X, Y and Z mention it, it must be notable" ... note that the guideline calls for "In-depth coverage" and "feature length" articles in sources like Time. So let's actually look at the cited sources... is the coverage really "In-depth" or "feature length"? I question that.

(as a side comment... if all we did was count sources, one might get an initial impression that the neologistic use of this symbol as a logogram for the word "the" is actually more notable than the more traditional Serbian/Cyrillic alphabet letter. After all, the article under discussion cites several sources, while the Tshe article does not cite a single source. Of course, initial impressions can be deceiving - a note to our linguistics project editors... please find sources for the Tshe article, to demonstrate why that letter is considered a notable topic. It shouldn't be too difficult, but it does need to be done). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Something very similar (combining those two letters) was proposed in 1916: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/fontblog/archive/2006/08/10/missed-opportunity-for-ligatures.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.57.45 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ћ should redirect to Tshe. If we decide that "The Tap" is indeed notable, it should be, for example, at The Tap — not hijacking the Serbian letter. Goldenshimmer (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see that Poobarb already made this point at Wikipedia:RM#July_12.2C_2013. Whoops. Goldenshimmer (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This interview with Mathis indicates that he is actually using the Serbian Cyrillic character Tshe, so it's clear that all he has really done is develop and market a keyboard app using Tshe to mean "the." There is actually no new logogram to write an article about. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder - This is an AfD discussion, not an RM discussion... Please focus on the article's topic, not the title. The question for this discussion is whether the topic is notable enough for an article to exist... not what to call that article. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a mere news story. I have added anything relevant to English articles#Abbreviations for "the" and "that". Hogweard (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Per Technical 13, I'll go for a delete or userfy- it seems to be a subject of a news flash and as per 202.124.73.7, all he's actually done is develop and market a keyboard app using Tshe to mean "the." There is actually no new logogram to write an article about. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tshe. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tshe. The search term is potentially valid as a redirect, but most of the existing article is off-topic, and citing the usage of "The" and "And" in English, which has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Even the creator himself said "Is this important? ... No. Is this going to change the world? Not really." (probably because it was something he made up one day). If it proves to have enduring notability, we can expand things out where we left off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has already been a content merge to English articles#Abbreviations for "the" and "that". The redirect has to go to Tshe, however, because it is part of an existing system of redirecting characters. The editor who replaced an important redirect by the present content has broken links at places like ISO/IEC 8859 and List of Cyrillic letters. -- 202.124.73.19 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 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. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Truth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 13. Snotbot t • c » 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany's Animal House (Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film set to be released in 2015. Only relevant Google hit is a Youtube video with 130 views that was uploaded in 2011. SamX‧☎‧✎ 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NF is failed and this has no coverage to overcome WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF; unable to find sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 12:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yobo Gameware Co.[edit]

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

Company appears to lack any notability. I cannot find any reliable sources, only a few forum/blog posts. Most Google results are business directories or store fronts. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 20 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero Gnews Archive and GBooks hits. Custom searches (e.g. [1]) are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this Highbeam article, but it's basically a routine report about the company receiving a trademark. Otherwise, lots of forum and blog posts about this company, but lacking coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 21 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Barrett[edit]

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

"Kelly Barrett is an American Actress. She was cast as Lead in Investigation Discovery "Deadly Sin's". The episode was titled "Reckless Abandon" -Anger. Kelly Barrett discovered One Republic in 2003 in Los Angeles acting as an AR rep for Sony Records." No evidence for any of the above. Shirt58 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This was a pure promotion plain and simple. It was originally deleted as such then immediately recreated. The account that made it is the PR person or is the subject themself. Fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual is a nobody SOXROX (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No significant roles as an actor. No sources to support that she discovered One Republic, and even it were verified, that's not something that normally gives rise to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No in-depth coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Duclair[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. While it looks extensive all of the sources used are passing mentions and listings of stats and people. They aren't by any means in depth. Can be recreated when/if he actually becomes notable. DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The player in question seems notable to me. He is a 3rd round pick in 2013 NHL Entry Draft, and you'll notice in the article, that many of the players drafted around him have articles, too. It seems unfair to single out just one player. SOXROX (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only first round picks meet WP:NHOCKEY. The others around him in the draft meet WP:NHOCKEY because they already played in top level professional leagues which this player has not. But as Patken mentions most of those around him are just redirects. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he does. The only other players drafted in the 3rd round with actual articles, not just re-directs, are those that played in a fully professional and top level league, like the KHL or SEL, or meet the NHOCKEY standard by being a 1st team all-star in an amateur league. Patken4 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Abundance of independent reliable sources demonstrates that this subject meets WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they aren't about him in depth and are only passing mentions. None of them meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you said with your nom. There is no need to repeat your disapproval in answer to everyone who votes for keeping this article. Please allow other editors to give their opinions without your argumentative comments in reply. I think the many independent and reliable sources are enough to meet GNG, and you have stated, twice now, that you do not. Just let this AfD play out without the POV banter. Dolovis (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole pointt of Afds is discussion, you are supposed to debate back and forth. That is how consensus is achieved. You make a statement, I challenge it. You back up your point by stating how they meet the requirements of being substantial in depth references etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An abundance of trivial mentions does not a GNG pass make. Reso lute 15:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many trivial and passing mentions. The few that near slightly more significant coverage are only from very local newspapers. Was an outside possibility for a 1st round pick in 2013, but that since that hasn't happened, I do not believe there is enough to meet GNG here. No need to rush into page creation. Ravendrop 05:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not available online, but the following is a 650-word article entirely about him: Basu, Arpon. "Duclair's way ahead of his time: Bantam Double-A scoring record falls", The Gazette, 4 Mar 2010: B9 Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:50, 20 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightshow (rapper)[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 13. Snotbot t • c » 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems more WP:PROMOTIONAL than anything - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His having been shot garnered some attention, but not enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO, imo (one of the links in the article even says "a local rapper from...", which suggests WP:ITSLOCAL). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:21, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wood[edit]

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

Tagged as failing notability for a year now - and was previously notability tagged in 2007, only being removed due to it being lost in various vandalism edits. Appears to be a non-notable calligrapher, with only primary or self-published sources existing on him, and I'm not seeing how the source in the article is reliable for the one vague notability claim. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the third-party article on this man at the link given. This seems to me to provide adquate grounds for inclusion.Kdammers (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything2? That doesn't look like a reliable source, and certainly not for the vague claim it made. Besides, it's one solitary source - which still isn't enough for notability, even if it is reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Evrything2 is not a reliable source. There are hints of notability. In a google news seearch, there is a paywalled article from the Fresno Bee for which the search summary reads "The cursive, fluid designs by highly regarded calligraphers, such as Denis Brown of Ireland and Dave Wood of Australia, are displayed on one lobby wall. Or you ..." but that's best hint I could find. A solo exhibition is noted in the article but with no details or sourcing. I can find no indication his works are held in the permanent collection of major galleries or museums. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with argument outlined by Whpq above. Finnegas (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Southern Hemisphere cyclone seasons. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1990–95 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons[edit]

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

These pages were originally designed back in 2006 to contain the Southern Hemisphere tropical Cyclones for the periods stated. However since then more research has been done and more information on the cyclones has come to light so thus the articles have been split off. The time has finally come i feel for these articles to be deleted. Jason Rees (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Southern Hemisphere cyclone seasons is the best route IMO, but I don't feel very strongly either way. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {EC} Im not sure redirecting them to the List of Southern Hemisphere cyclone seasons is the best idea at the minute since its nothing more than a collection of links but im in two minds about expanding that one out and including all of the tropical systems for the SHEM in it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to preserve the edit history. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 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 as A7, no claim of significance or importance. ... discospinster _talk 00:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NLR (Nous sommes la résistance) Australian Prepper Organisation[edit]

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

Right, I'm fed up with this. Quacking sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackMack67) removing speedy delete notices on an article about an organisation that isn't notable and contains lots of original research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Also WP:COI issues if user:JackMack67 is " Jacqueline Mackenzie elected chairman of NLR, interview in Geelong, Australia on the 8/07/2013". Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - where is the coverage at all, let alone the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required for notability? And the "oh, I was mistaken" messages in response are disingenuous at best. AGF, sure, but we're not completely stupid, right? Stalwart111 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficiently notable. Keep it for six months, but then if no more press coverage develops, we should consider deletion. SemiFree (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have my suspicions about this account too (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackMack67). But anyway to address her points, presently we have no press coverage. This isn't how it works - if you can't provide press coverage now, it will be deleted. If in 6 months' time, you can provide adequate references, and consensus is to accept them, then it may be resurrected. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the purported references in this article appear to be irrelevant to the particular organization that is the subject of the article. If the organization really is notable, then the article's supporters ought to clean up the references so that all of them will point to relevant sources, not to things like Google Translate or Wikipedia categories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim to notability, and online searches show clearly that no claim will be forthcoming. Wildly non-notable. Google searches lead only back to Wiki and to this page, which reads "Visit our Wikipedia page for more information." Hairhorn (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is ever RS coverage someone can re-create. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article not backed up by reliable, independent sources. Far too much WP:OR to be reliable. The Banner talk 22:14, 14 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scotcheroos[edit]

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

This is a sloppy stub that I put together in 2011. I am not sure of the subject's notability. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. Worth including in the encyclopedia. Certainly could be improved.. How did biggest loser version become healthier? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:19, 7 July 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) 10:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - Seems covered in sources here and there, good to stay. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:52, 19 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language Family Guy voice actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of non-English versions of Family Guy

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

Fails WP:GNG and is also fancruft. No sources have been substantially written about why anyone who isn't a Family Guy nut would care about a list of non-English actors. The previous nomination gave no good keep arguments, simply being "Wikipedia is worldwide and this is an appropriate way to summarize a list of Non-English actors" which fails to prove why this fancruft article is notable. Beerest355 Talk 02:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non notable. Koala15 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability of the topic. Sandstein 12:50, 13 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Indian[edit]

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

The subject of the article is obviously OR, as no reliable source can be found that talks about the so-called "Bangladeshi Indian people". Shovon (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The title itself is OR and the article is POV. Bangladeshi Indian, as a category of immigrants are not recognized in India. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants could be a group instead. Further the list of people listed as Bangladeshi Indians are mostly Bengali Hindus of eastern Bengal descent who settled in India after the Partition and before 1971. Therefore, they were never Bangladeshi citizens. So the term Bangladeshi Indian is not applicable for them. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bangladeshi Indian is not of Illegal immigrants in India, Bangladeshi Indians are present people who's origin is from Bangladesh and are living in India now (mostly West Bengal, Assam and Tripura), and sometimes they claim to be Bangladeshis which is a result of Bengali nationalism in fact. In simple words the Bangladeshi people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian. It is an important page which links to Bangladeshi's Immigration to India and Bangladeshi diaspora. This page is just a normal page as Bangladeshi Americans, Bengali American, Nepali Indian or Anglo Indian terms. It is almost useless or may be senseless request to nominate this page for deletion. Please read and know on the present situation of people. Thank you. Regards too. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 16:29, 3 July 2013 (BST)/15:59, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Question: How many reliable sources define or even mention the term "Bangladeshi Indian"? Shovon (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:In such case many types of people and ethnic groups are still not defined properly, (For a good example the ethnic history and origin of Assamese people and Bisnupriya Manipuri Society are still not defined properly.) you mean removal of all such pages? There might not be a specific source specifying specifically Bangladeshi Indians, but hence It is a fact and reality of existence of Bangladeshi Indian people. As already explained in short "the Bangladeshi origin-ed people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian" as the Nepali origin-ed people living in India are known as Nepali Indian, and many such more, you mean to delete all such pages which are reality? Thanks you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 17:37, 3 July 2013 (BST)/17:07, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Delete: There are no such Ethnic groups nor India or Bangladesh used. I have to say that this "Bangladeshi Indian" term comes from ~~brain grey cell of the creator~~ of this article User:BijoyChakrabarty ( please don't count as personal attack) . He claim himself as Bangladeshi Indian (বাংলাদেশি ইন্ডিয়ান). Not as Ethnicity group as Nationality. He claim as Nationality Bangladeshi Indian (বাংলাদেশি ইন্ডিয়ান) and Ethnicity Bengali people (বাঙালি জাতি). Still now, no one claim her/himself as Bangladeshi Indian in the list of people. There are No reliable source at all and very much failed as WP:N issue and whole article written from personal research. In each reference I have studied and there are no mention as they Bangladeshi Indian.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 13:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayanta Nath, You sound specifically violent against me. The term Bangladeshi Indian is not a ethnic group by the way, and It is NOT from my brain grey cell and I NEVER CREATED SUCH ARTICLE. Somebody else is the creator and I Found this article someday and so I used it on my user page, and I never claimed it as nationality I went on facts. and In such case many types of people are still not defined properly. Once again to say, the Bangladeshi people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian. It is not a research page, it is a fact page about one of the types of people. It is an important page which links to Bangladeshi's Immigration to India and Bangladeshi diaspora. This page is just a normal page as Bangladeshi Americans, Bengali American, Nepali Indian or Anglo Indian terms. It is almost useless or may be senseless request to nominate this page for deletion. Please read and know on the present situation of people. you mean removal of all such pages? There might not be a specific source specifying specifically Bangladeshi Indians, but hence It is a fact and reality of existence of Bangladeshi Indian people. As already explained in short "the Bangladeshi origin-ed people living in present India are known as Bangladeshi Indian" as the Nepali origin-ed people living in India are known as Nepali Indian, and many such more, you mean to delete all such pages which are reality? BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 19:48, 3 July 2013 (BST)/19:18, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Oh Dear, so please go through with Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You can under stand and you accept the deletion request. or you can proposed merge with Bangladeshi diaspora. Thank you.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 13:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging it with Bangladeshi diaspora is senseless when you have an article specifically about Bangladeshi diaspora to India as Bangladeshi Indian. In such case for example you should also merge pages like Indian American with Indian diaspora? or Nepali Indian with Nepali diaspora?? It is all senseless, PLEASE THINK IN REALITY FACTS AND SENCE! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:10, 3 July 2013 (BST)/19:40, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Your logic is very clear id there Bangladeshi Americans, Bengali American, Nepali Indian or Anglo Indian have, Bangladeshi Indian must be there. Then anyone claim to write another article named Indian Bangladeshi ( reverse of this article) who lives in Bangladesh but born or ancestral origin/born India. Presenlty many people who lives in Bangladesh but born or ancestral origin/born India, but they are not called as like that. So this total article is POV and OR.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for realizing the logic. on the other side you have to learn the History for that! and to make it clear, for Indians in Bangladesh already a page exists as Indians in Bangladesh, and for Bangladeshis in India a page exists as Bangladeshi Indian instead of Bangladeshis in India because the history in Bengal region you know it well. and the term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. IN SENSE, LOGIC AND FACT, THE PROPOSAL OF DELETING THIS PAGE IS FOOLISH! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:42, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:12, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Q:...........merge pages like Indian American with Indian diaspora? or Nepali Indian with Nepali diaspora??

A: No, I cant propose Because Indian American is well known term by published media and it is verifiable. But term Bangladeshi Indian is not verifiable at all.In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.^[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot propose so than also don't propose this, it's all NONSENSE! and well term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:42, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:12, 3 July 2013 (IST)

But Dear where is the verifiable references about your claim????- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your politeness Bengali-Brother! Well to say it all again term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party as upsetting the communal demographic balance in several parts of India. The page's name should be Bangladeshis in India but due to many factors as discussed before the name is Bangladeshi Indian, hence a page where it is literally for Bangladeshis in India CANNOT be deleted IN LOGIC, SENSE AND FACT! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 20:55, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:25, 3 July 2013 (IST)

You said that since it is undocumented and is perceived by the Bharatiya Janata Party means not published agreed that is un-verifiable. So you can not add this article as per policy verifiable.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page Bangladeshi Indian carefully and also read my posts carefully, The page's name should haven been Bangladeshis in India but due to many factors as discussed before the name is Bangladeshi Indian, hence a page where it is literally for Bangladeshis in India CANNOT be deleted IN LOGIC, SENSE AND FACT! BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 21:07, 3 July 2013 (BST)/20:37, 3 July 2013 (IST)

You can start an article Bangladeshis in India or move Bangladeshi Indian to Bangladeshis in India ( as like Indians in Bangladesh) and edit as per article title. I have no issue. But list of the people i the article will be deleted , because no-one are Bangladeshi, all are pure Indian.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Bangladeshi Indian also means people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, or people who proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh (or may not), and live in India or in simple words Their ancestry/ origin lies in present Bangladesh. As The name Bangladeshi Indian refers to Bangladeshis in India (which can mean people transfer through immigration or migrated families after 1947 or 1971). Please read the whole Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Indian also for your better self understanding on what have been discussed till now and what is the fact! The list of people fall under this for sure. and By the way this page is not mentioning anybody's citizenship specifically as Bangladeshi or Indian. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 21:30, 3 July 2013 (BST)/21:00, 3 July 2013 (IST)

Delete as per the nomination advanced or write from scratch Illegal immigration of Bangladeshis to India. The Legend of Zorro 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your statement in brief? Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉

There are no single source which states the term Bangladeshi Indian. It does not matter which nationality or ethnicity we want to associate with us if there is no reliable source which supports such a nationality exists. I do however note that you are not the creator of the article. But if you have such strong views that this article is to be kept you have to give Reliable secondary source that such a thing exists. The Legend of Zorro 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been explained in details, I believe Mr. BijoyChakrabarty! The article itself has many contradictions within itself. e.g. The article defines Bangladeshi Indians as "people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, or people who proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh and live in India." Then, the article goes on to list a number of persons who had neither migrated from the present day Bangladesh (i.e. after 1971) or have never proclaimed themselves to be belonging to the group. The definition itself may give rise to the question about the status of the people who had been/or are still being forced to migrate due to reasons other than economic sustenance. However, these question, I believe, can be addressed in a different space. Till now, I have not seen a single reliable source which defines such a category of persons and hence my original assertion that this article is a piece of original research stands. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:, Yeah! if considering this article on base or original research... then it has no actual reason to be deleted. This page Bangladeshi Indian is a real fact and is only a type of people page (It is not Nationality or citizenship specific page) and is also not a Junk matter or Rubbish IT IS FACT! Hence, This page should be KEPT as it was. Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉

The term Bangladeshi Indian is itself a original research. Please show a single neutral secondary source which uses this term or else neither of your multiple votes stands. The Legend of Zorro 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term Bangladeshi Indian may sound OR but I guess it's not an impediment to keeping this article which can be moved to a better title like Bangladeshis in India. The scope of the article must be the people whose ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh, not just those who migrated after 1971 per other similar articles. (note: I have edited the lead a bit) --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is OK but still it needs to be rewrited from scratch. A better solution will be to userfy it to your user space where you can rewrite the article by the name Bangladeshis in India. But still it needs to specify whether it is about ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh or it is about who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons. An article can cover only one of the criteria or else trying to cover both criterias in same time may result in WP:OR. So I think loosing the page history and then working from scratch in either of these two criterias is a very valid option. The Legend of Zorro 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@User:Kmzayeem, anyone can moved this article Bangladeshis in India, but the subject matter is different ( as similar like Indians in Bangladesh) .So they have to write the article from scratch. and list in the article of people of Bangladeshi Indian claim by the contributor is WP:OR.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:User:Kmzayeem, as far as I understand, the term "Bangladeshi Indian", in itself, is pure OR. The article clearly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and as such, there is no scope for a rewrite too! Shovon (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shovon, see my earlier comment, that's why I suggested the move, the article has huge scope, to establish the notability of this article you just need to prove that there is a substantial number of people in India including many prominent figures with Bangladeshi origin which I guess all of us agree. Even I agree the article needs a lot of work but don't think a deletion is required. I don't see any difference between the contexts of "Bangladeshi Indian" and "Bangladeshis in India", but I suggested the move since the term "Bangladesh Indian" doesn't seem to be common. And about the scope of article, I guess it depends on the editors who write the article as there is no such guidelines for that. In my opinion, the scope should be all the Indians who are of Bangladeshi origins (before or after 1971), per other similar articles.--Zayeem ^(talk) 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zayeem, any article failing WP:Verifiability must be deleted. To save the article from deletion, why don't you "prove that there is a substantial number of people in India including many prominent figures with Bangladeshi origin", who are termed as Bangladeshi Indians by third-party reliable sources? Shovon (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are very much difference between the contexts of "Bangladeshi Indian" and "Bangladeshis in India". In brief "Bangladeshi Indian" is as like Bangladeshi Americans ( as per claim by this article) and "Bangladeshis in India" is people legal or illegal immigrated people after birth of Bangladesh (1971). This is as like reverse article of Indians in Bangladesh. So this article should be deleted as per policies.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree with Jayanta Nath. Moreover, Illegal Bangladeshis in India is suitably covered here. There is no need for a separate article, I guess. Shovon (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Nath, well I said it before, there is no such guidelines about the context of these articles and it mostly depends on the editors who write it. I don't think it would be a reverse of Indians in Bangladesh, while this article is also not something that you would follow (quality wise). As I said, move the article into Bangladeshis in India and work out on its contents, it should be fine then. The article has huge scope (history, culture) and can be expanded within a very short time. We all are mostly concerned with content issues, which doesn't require deletion.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does not have huge scope (history, culture). Because the country Bangladesh is itself a creation of 40 years. The article needs to specify whether it is about ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh or it is about who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons. Two scopes are radically different from each other and two needs a separate article and the later should probably be better as a list then article. At present the article is WP:OR with none of the sources making it clear what is the scope of the article. Hence I suggested above to userfy it for you where you can write it from scratch. The first thing required to improve this article is first to make sure what is the scope of the article. The Legend of Zorro 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about people whose ancestry and origin lies within the nation of present day Bangladesh but live in present India (mostly in West Bengal, Assam and Tripura), In which most of them are the people who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons, and some are which have come to India via Immigration process in modern times. Of which some people also proclaim their nationality/allegiance with Bangladesh which results in Bengali nationalism but live in present India. This article is a mix because both ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh and who migrated from the nation of Bangladesh to India after 1971 due to economic reasons concept is interrelated. Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 17:48, 4 July 2013 (BST)/17:17, 4 July 2013 (IST)

(edit conflict)Solomon, but if you look at other similar articles like British Bangladeshis which covers all the Bangladeshis including those who migrated before 1971, then the scope of the article should be all of the Indians of Bangladeshi origin who migrated before or after 1971. I won't mind userfying it but I would like to see some neutral observations, as I really think a deletion is not required here, rather some work on the contents would suffice.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be made perfectly encyclopedic if worked in some neutral manner and following the common name. For example the article has a section Notable Bengali Bangal people living in India whose ancestry lies in present-day Bangladesh. Bangal people is a common name used to denote people whose ancestry lies within present day Bangladesh. This is perfectly encylopedic. But renaming this thing Bangladeshi Indian will be rewriting history. I hope it explains why it is WP:OR. The Legend of Zorro 12:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's exactly what I'm talking about. The OR can be fixed by adding references and removing the POVs, but we really don't need a deletion here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently most of the thing in this article is about illegal bangladeshi immigrants and the list of Bangal people is the only sensible (yet unreferenced) info I am finding. I mean that the garbage in the article outweighs the good portion and the title itself is blatant WP:OR. The Legend of Zorro 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be fixed if we give more time to the article rather than this AfD. Also take a look at the talk page where an RM is underway.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will request you to spend some time on Bangal. This article now has only one reference. I stick to my argument that this article is beyond saving. The only thing any editor can do is to use the contents of this article to develop some poorly developed perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topics. The Legend of Zorro 12:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what if more references are added to this article? We can add a separate section on culture as well. This article has seriously huge potential to be developed into an encyclopedic one.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon, The history in that page is also correct, it is not rewriting, please try reading the page again. and the Term Bangladeshi Indian connotes a different meaning compared to widely used terms such as British Bangladeshi and Bangladeshi American, marking it's uniqueness as I already explained in my above explanations several times. BijoyChakrabarty ✉ 18:12, 4 July 2013 (BST)/17:42, 4 July 2013 (IST)

@BijoyChakrabarty I note that you have not provided reference or valid arguments in your defence since no editor in wikipedia is a reliable source. The Legend of Zorro 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also started a discussion on requested move on the article talk page.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we have a couple valid reliable sources, which either define or mention "Bangladeshi Indian" people? Other than that, all "Keep" arguments are falling like nine pins without any rhyme or reason. Shovon (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely none of them mentions the term, that's why an RM is in progress. Concern with the title can be sorted out with that RM not an AfD. The subject of the article is Indians of Bangladeshi descent, which include a large number of people and many prominent figures, the subject is highly notable and a number of references have been added. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zayeem, the term Bangladeshi refers to a nationality and not ethnicity. And we have already had enough discussions on citizenship issues. As per Ragib's suggestion a person can be described as X is/was a Bangladeshi Y if he/she lives/lived in Bangladesh with a Bangladeshi citizenship, even though he/she might have been born in British India (pre-1947) or East Pakistan (1947-71). By this logic none of the persons listed in the article have any Bangladeshi origin. So I'm going to delete them. If you know any person who had a Bangladeshi citizenship but later settled in India then you might list them up. BengaliHindu (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Bangladeshi origin" refers to those persons whose ancestry lies in present day Bangladesh. Many Bangladeshis who settled in UK long before 1971, are referred to as British Bangladeshis. They are not Bangladeshi nationals or citizens, rather Bangladeshi descents. Also, there is a citation given in the article about the list of prominent figures. Moreover, your concerns are about content issues which can be discussed in the article talk page, no need for a deletion.--Zayeem ^(talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that the phrase "Bangladeshi origin" refers to those persons whose ancestry lies in present day Bangladesh is certainly debatable. People whose ancestry lie in present day Bangladesh while they have settled in UK or maybe US before 1971 are termed as British Bangladeshis, this is also debatable. Moreover, the terms "British Bangladeshi" and "Bangladeshi Indian" are totally different. This is because the territory of present day Bangladesh was never a part of UK but it was an integral part of India. So people who were born and who lived in present territory of Bangladesh cannot be called Bangladeshi Indian. For if it were so then we have to call Bhagat Singh (1907-1931) a Pakistani Indian. If Bhagat Singh is not a Pakistani then Chandravati, Nabin Chandra Sen are not Bangladeshis. I've already voted above in support of deletion. I'm engaging in this debate just to sort things out. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your arguments are about content issues for which the talk page is the best place to discuss. The subject of the article is "Indian people of Bangladeshi origin" which include a large number of people and many prominent figures, the article is also properly referenced now, so there is no reason to delete the article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term really is being used by some to mean something it does not. We cannot use this term to refer to the millions of Bengalis who relocated from what was about to become East Pakistan into India in the late 1940s. Bengladeshi refers to nationals of Bangldesh, that is people who lived in Bangladesh after 1971. It is thus even questionable to use it to refer to the millions of Bengali Muslims displaced during the war of independence.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Well, Bangladeshi Indian may sound odd, but shouldn't the contents be kept under a different title? The subject of the article is "Indian people of Bangladeshi descent" which deserves a separate article for various reasons pointed above, even Amartya Sen, who migrated to India from East Bengal during the partition, described himself as "a Bengali of Bangladeshi descent" in his book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zayeem, what you fail to understand is that the term Bangladeshi defines a "nationality". Did Amartya Sen say that he "is" a "Bengali of Bangladeshi descent"? Or, did he use the term "I can be"? Furthermore, all other persons listed there are NOT of Bangladeshi descent. Shovon (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Whereas the arguments for delete look to me as stronger and supported by a majority, it is still not a consensus yet. Let us discuss one more week and see.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to East Bengali culture in India or something similar. Nationality in South Asia is extremely complex, and to talk about 'Indian Bangladeshis', 'Bangladeshi Indians' or 'Indians of Bangladeshi descent' should be avoided at all times as these identities overlap. There are Bangladeshis in India, recent migrants, that identify themselves as Bangladeshis (or get identified as such by host communities), but the East Bengalis that migrated at time of Partition never had any 'Bangladeshi' identity. East Bengal was part of India at the time they left for other parts of India (likewise with Sindhis, etc.). There is an East Bengali culture (albeit heavily assimilated nowadays) in West Bengal, and in Tripura the Bengali dialect is East Bengali, so there is material for such an article. But the passages on recent Bangladeshi migration would need to be weeded out, as well as weasel wordings like 'natives'. --Soman (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already observed that East Bengali culture in India doesn't have any distinct existence in India any more. You are right. Moreover, historically, the so called region of East Bengal (especially prior to the Partition of India), constituted of the Dhaka and Chittagong divisions minus the CHT i.e. the undivided districts of Mymensingh, Dhaka, Faridpur, Barisal, Tipperah (a.k.a Comilla), Noakhali and Chittagong. This may be termed as the East Bengal proper. The Rajshahi division (undivided Rajshahi, Pabna, Bogra, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Maldah, Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling) was considered to be part of North Bengal and were not a part of the East Bengal proper. Undivided Jessore, Khulna or Kushtia sub-division (then part of Nadia district) were never considered a part of East Bengal proper. In fact in the 1905 Partition of Bengal, the entire Presidency division including undivided Jessore, Khulna and the whole of Nadia (including the Kushtia sub-division) were not included in Eastern Bengal and Assam. Similarly, Sylhet, which formed a part of Surma Valley division of Assam was not a part of East Bengal proper. Strictly speaking, the term Bangal was used to refer to the Bengali Hindus from East Bengal proper. The Bangals didn't consider people from Jessore or Khulna as fellow Bangals or pure Bangals. Therefore the term Kathbangal was used for the Bengali Hindus from East Bengal proper to categorize them as pure or hardcore Bangals. Therefore the regional identity of people in the territory of modern day Bangladesh was not unique. It was diversified. So was the culture, cuisine and dialect. Even within East Bengal proper, the dialect varied from Mymensingh to Chittagong. The Sylhet people, consider themselves more Sylheti than East Bengali. After the Partition and subsequent assimilation of Bengali Hindus in West Bengal, Assam or Tripura, there is hardly any unique East Bengali culture left in India. So, in my opinion, there is no logic to have a separate article East Bengali culture in India. It makes sense to delete this article altogether. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article Bangal would probably cover what I was looking for. Change vote to delete. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate content (restoring NPOV) to Bangladeshi diaspora per WP:NOR. Miniapolis 14:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term "Bangladeshi" means that the persons are of Bangladeshi descent, which isn't true in this case. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, who have a sizable presence in India, may be included in the article Bangladeshi diaspora, but there is no place for the article titled "Bangladeshi Indians" in Wikipedia. Just check the verifiability criteria please! Shovon (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said "appropriate content". Miniapolis 13:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this category of people is not recognized either by Indian or Bangladeshi.Dipanjan Dev (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dipanjan Dev has made very edits elsewhere. Shovon (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from not having multiple sourcees which would have been required to show widespread usage of the term, the article itself is pretty redundant. What is the difference between a Bengali in India and a Bangladeshi Indian? And how are the two different enough to warrant an article on the latter? We could have the article moved to Bangladeshi Immigrants in India instead, where it will be better placed, but only if the article seems to have enough references to be worth saving. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the nomination and TOS. Inappropriate crap. Fai zan 06:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list of personalities in this article are actually Bangals. Bangal is a well-established term, and means those who descended from families in the eastern part of Bengal (I am not using the term East Bengal as this may be confusing with the political entity East Bengal). A person of such descent, and who lives in, say, Kolkata in the Indian state of West Bengal, may identify himself as a Bangal, but not as a Bangladeshi Indian!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 19 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust (political party)[edit]

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

A defunct political party which nominated only two candidates in the UK general election, 2010, notable only because of one of its founders. Defunct after one year, if that. Not notable in the broadest sense of the definition, let alone Wikipedia policy. No evidence of notability. No evidence of importance. No suggestion of important enough campaigning during or after general election. doktorb _words^deeds 07:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article demonstrates notability, promiment leaders and gathered thousands of votes (in spite of standing in just 2 constituencies). --Soman (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though certainly a minor party it feels like there's enough historical relevance there to justify inclusion. RyanGrant (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Party (UK)[edit]

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

Not notable by any measure of Wikipedia policies. Exceptionally minor party with only two candidates in 2010 and no recorded candidates or campaigning since. Nothing to indicate notability or importance outside a general election. Nothing to indicate importance will grow in short or medium term. doktorb _words^deeds 07:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party is clearly active because there are letters from the local candidate in the Reading, Berkshire local papers almost every week. Biscuittin (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the notification. They are indeed a local party, but they have more longevity than just a single General Election and do campaign, e.g. see this coverage from the following year. 'Importance' is irrelevant - they've had press coverage over several years. Notability is not temporary, so even if they suddenly disband the existing coverage is adequate for us to write an article on them. Fences&Windows 15:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.[edit]

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

Seems to be mostly for advertisement, and there is no notability established. Most references are not reliable nor secondary sources. Tek022 | _Comments? 07:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks overly promotional. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited this article to remove any references that might be perceived as WP:PROMOTION. I am fairly new to creating articles and I would request that this article be classified as a 'newpage', as a common courtesy until I can do a better job of meeting guidelines. I am in the process of creating articles that link to the Duluth, Georgia page, in reference to the businesses in the local area. It will take me time to do so, but I think this will add to the value of that article. Aweart (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, the only question is whether there are reliable independent secondary sources to establish the subject is notable. Although I and other editors often complain at AfD that an article appears to be promotional, that by itself is not a reason to delete. At AfD, the expectation is that if the sources exist and the article is merely badly written, that can be fixed. What can't be fixed by rewriting is a lack of sources. Bottom line: You can edit it all day long but if you can't find suitable sources, it won't matter. Msnicki (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind and attempt to update this article with suitable sources and update this talk page when that is completed. Aweart (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even necessary to update the article. If you can find suitable sources and merely identify them here, that will be sufficient. The requirement for notability is that the sources must exist, not that they've been cited in the article. Again, if the only problem is that the article is badly written, that can always be fixed. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable sources to show the notability of "The Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates"

First source: ^[2] - This secondary source shows physical location and proof of existence within a state entity.
Second Source: ^[3] David Markiewicz, of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, refers to Gary and his law firm as prominent in the Atlanta area. David is an objective secondary source who specializes in Atlanta businesses for the Atlanta Journal Constitution and supports the notability of this subject.
Third Source: ^[4] CNN Headline News features The Law Office's lead attorney Gary Martin Hays. CNN is a well known secondary source that supports the notability of this subject.
Fourth Source: ^[5] The News Certified Exchange lists The Law Office's lead attorney Gary Martin Hays as an expert in Justice and Law. This 4th reference also lists 7 instances where the subject was interviewed by secondary sources supporting the notability of the subject.

Please advise on the suitability of these sources. Aweart (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The listing in the state bar only proves he really is a lawyer. If that's all it took, we'd have a page for every lawyer in the country. The third and fourth are WP:PRIMARY, meaning the subject wrote them himself. One has his byline on it, so there's no need to look further. The other, the bio, is also pretty obviously something he wrote himself and we can confirm that by Googling to confirm that the same basic text also appears on his captive Keep Georgia Safe [2] and Gwinnett Gladiators [3] sites. You can't make yourself notable just by writing about yourself. The only one that might even possibly contribute to notability is the second item, the interview piece. Interviews can sometimes contribute to notability but only to the extent they include the interviewer's analysis and thoughts. Only that part can possibly be WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SECONDARY. The part that's merely a transcript of what the interviewee said or an uncritical dump of background info he's provided doesn't count. In this article, the little bit of additional biographical info in the lede, including the sunny endorsements, appear to have been supplied by the subject. He's part owner of the Gwinnett Gladiators, so of course the general manager who works for him can be counted on to say something nice. Similarly for the executive director of the Keep Georgia Safe organization he founded and runs; if she doesn't have something nice to say, it's probably time to dust off her resume. None of this contributes to notability. None of it. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. As I do more research to try and attain good secondary sources for notability, I find myself looking at other pages. Are there any good examples of secondary source references on a page like this Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman? Also, just a question, if you are interviewed by many news sources (CNN, etc.), does not the fact that you are being interviewed for your expertise make you notable? I ask because I think I am confused on how decide what is notable or worthy of adding to Wikipedia. Aweart (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Lawyer article [4] appears sufficient to establish notability of that article. But even if you disagree and feel that article is really no better, take care to avoid comparisons to other pages. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument at AfD because that other page could also be nominated for deletion at any moment. This is why I'd suggest reading the guidelines themselves, starting with WP:Notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes good sense, I will avoid comparing other articles in the future. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." What is the definition of "significant?" For the sake of the subject in question, it appears that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources: ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] Aweart (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I just say about interviews? You can't make yourself notable through your own speaking or your own writing. All of that is WP:PRIMARY; it can be used in the article to document that you actually have said certain things but not to argue that we should have article in the first place. That takes WP:Notability on Wikipedia, which has a more technical definition here than it does in casual conversation. It's not enough that a subject seems worthy of note. Other people not connected to the subject have to actually taken note and they have to have done it in WP:RELIABLE sources. Different editors will interpret the guidelines slightly differently but my rule of thumb is that all it takes is a couple of 1000-word articles actually about the subject by WP:INDEPENDENT authors, offering their own WP:SECONDARY analysis or thoughts in a publication with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand that you can not be made notable through your own speaking. My point is that CNN, Fox, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and so on, would not have asked Mr. Hays to speak if he wasn't notable. The fact that they asked him to help them report news, based on his expertise, makes him notable. I assume they don't make it a habit to ask random, un-vetted people to give expert opinions on topics they report on. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." It is my contention that CNN, Fox, NBC, and The Atlanta Journal Constitution (reputable media sources) gave independent coverage to Mr. Hays because of his legal expertise on a multitude of topics, not merely a "short-term interest," and that shows his notability. The fact that he is being interviewed is not notable in and of itself. The fact that reputable sources are relying on Mr. Hays to help report the news makes the subject notable. If this line of reasoning holds no precedence, I will look for articles in a reputable publication that discuss the subject. Aweart (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that they asked him to help them report news, based on his expertise, makes him notable." No, it doesn't. Period. Why do lawyers and judges often hate pro se litigants? It's because they waste time with arguments they'd know were wrong if they had spent time learning the rules. If the subject was notable for those appearances, it would be because someone not connected with him or the show had taken note and written about them elsewhere. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that I am a pro se litigant and that you are a judge that hates me? I would appreciate it if you would avoid using personal attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In the meantime, I will look for articles in reputable print publications that discuss the subject. Aweart (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I should have found a better way to express myself. I had been guessing or maybe hoping that if you were interested in an article about a law firm, that you might have some connection to the law. I hoping to reach out to you. I was hoping that if you were a lawyer yourself, if you'd worked in a law firm or if you'd ever had the frustrating experience of trying to argue something pro se, that we might share an ah-hah moment of communication, that AfDs are very guidelines-based discussions, a lot like courtrooms. It's near impossible to win if you don't know the rules. I had given you some links to the reading, but it hadn't seemed like you'd done much of it. It's not really fair to expect other editors in an AfD to repeat here what's already there in the guidelines, so, sure, I was a little annoyed and not thinking so constructively as I should. I allowed that to seep into my tone, that wasn't right, you have every right to be annoyed, and I owe you an apology. I'm sorry. Msnicki (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.
^ State Bar
^ Prominent Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer
^ CNN
^ News Certified Exchange
^ Interview 1
^ Interview 2
^ Interview 3
^ Interview 4
^ Interview 5
^ Interview 6

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. A very minor party with no evidence of any campaigning after the 2010 general election, and have not taken part in any Westminster by-elections since 2010. Not notable, not important, no evidence of significant results or significant campaigning during or after the election. doktorb _words^deeds 06:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not successful, certainly, but it didn't expect to be in terms of winning seats. Consider this: in time to come (or today!) you're reading up on British elections and election results and somewhere there's a table of candidates or whatever that includes the Animal Protection Party. The book won't tell you much; after all, it concentrates on the three major parties and the largest of the others. So where do you go to find out more? To an encyclopaedia, of course. But not, apparently, Wikipedia! (And as a former student and teacher of political science, I can testify that this a recurring problem.) Emeraude (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, political party presenting candidates across multiple constituencies, part of interesting phenomenon of Animal Rights in party politics. --Soman (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many candidates User:Soman at the 2010 election? And how many since? doktorb _words^deeds 16:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four candidates in 2010. To my knowledge in general elections have been held since (by-elections are not a good indicator). It should also be understood that, seeing how the constituencies were selected, the goal of the election campaign was not to get MPs elected but rather to raise concern about issues. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a single-issue party stood in 4 seats, failed to get elected, and we have to include them on Wikipedia? doktorb _words^deeds 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 July 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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Registryasp[edit]

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

The current article does not contain any sources to establish the subject's notability or produce properly verified material. CorporateM (Talk) 03:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A firm going about its business (though the article has some lovely PR WP:PEACOCKery: rather than "sign a contract", they "hit the jackpot"); but no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article's luck has run out, I mean delete. Unfortunately, there's not enough coverage for this company. Also, it's promotional. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and of course they do not sell solutions! That is just a buzzword, as is the acronym soup. Perhaps some day an article on the parent company might be more likely to survive, whose official name seems to be Qinetics Solutions Berhad, sigh. Too bad, since we do need more coverage of the Internet outside of North America and Europe, but this is not it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:12, 18 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CBOSS Corporation[edit]

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

There are no proper sources in the current article and a Google News Archives search turns up empty. CorporateM (Talk) 02:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are variants of company name, and for "CBOSS" Russia there are two news in the google's archive: [5] : 1 and 2. But If we consider russian news aggregator, e.g. news.yandex.ru, with cboss we will got hundreds of articles. Recently company was banned from Mobile World Congress (co.uk, com) `a5b (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and watchlist. CorporateM (Talk) 12:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has 3 sources including the Telegraph. Seems to satisfy WP:SOURCES ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 10:39, 14 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Light Group[edit]

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

Only 55 employees. This may be the only proper source in the current article. A Google News Archive search turns up empty. CorporateM (Talk) 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of current employees, or even the continued existence of the company, is not an indication of notability. Northern Light had an important part in the history of search engines, which is worth documenting. See, for example an article reporting the closing of its Web search engine: "Northern Light, the company that pioneered a number of innovative features for web searchers". Remember 1999? The top Web search engines were AltaVista, Northern Light, Inktomi, and HotBot.

You say that a Google News Archive search turns up empty. That is false. I find a number of articles in Google Archive Search (though many of the links are now dead):

Northern Light rescued from bankruptcy | Boston Business...‎ |Bizjournals.com - May 23, 2003
… Connection: Northern Light to Discontinue Its Free...‎ | Information Today - Feb 1, 2002
Search rivals see AltaVista straying from its roots -...‎| ZDNet Asia - Nov 6, 1999 | Just days after the company announced a major overhaul to compete with full- service Web portals such as Yahoo, search engine Northern Light launched a ...

Then there's Google Books:

Special Edition Using the Internet and Web - Page 293 | books.google.com/books?isbn=0789726130 (2001) | ...if you haven't used Northern Light yet, you're missing out on one of the hest search sites on the entire Internet! In addition to a decent-sized index, Northern Light includes a good collection of ...
Academic Research on the Internet: Options for Scholars and Libraries - Volume 2 - Page 340 | books.google.com/books?isbn=0789011778 (2000) | ... America Online (AOL), Yahoo!, Electric Library and Northern Light are good examples of portals that most consumers use.

The article can certainly be improved, but that is no reason to delete it. --Macrakis (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the majority of sources are from [highbeam.com], is that reputable? Or is this one of those PR companies? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 10:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added these sources yesterday using Highbeam to locate newspaper articles. On the use of Highbeam resource within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:HighBeam. AllyD (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company's best period may behind it, but the coverage establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 16 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International SOS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A quick Google News Archive search only returns press releases. All the sources are either to the company website, bylines written by company execs, broken links or brief mentions. CorporateM (Talk) 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a major company, world leading in international medical evacuations. However, the name is bit difficult to google as get up a lot of non-relevant stuff, dealing with "SOS" as a concept. --Soman (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep plenty of evidence of notability, easily found if you search for the company name in quotation marks. For example, this story about Duke University's reliance on their advice, GWU's use of the service, this interview in Conde Nast - and all of these are in the past week or so! -- Scray (talk) 03:13, 16 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Engel[edit]

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

Article gives the appearance of proper verification through 33 cites, but in actuality provides almost none. Some of the links do not mention the article-subject and others I had to look up in my library's database to find that the subject is only briefly mentioned/quoted. It is very rare that a publicist is truly notable themselves and I note that a large bulk of the article is not actually about the article-subject and that many aspects of the article are misleading. For example, one image suggests he may be notable by saying that an image of him was used on the front page of Oil & Gas Magazine, but only his hand was actually included in the cover, which is routine for a publicist to act as an extra for a photo.CorporateM (Talk) 01:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Response to remarks of CorporateM, in order.

Article gives the appearance of proper verification through 33 cites, but in actuality provides almost none. Some of the links do not mention the article-subject and others I had to look up in my library's database to find that the subject is only briefly mentioned/quoted. Some of the publications came out of the communities in which the activities took place, so it may be necessary to find those articles via a library.

A general discussion of the article's citations is given below. The citations are grouped and discussed, according to the type and/or amount of information they provide.

Citations which do not mention Engel or his program specifically. -- Many of us watched the shale revolution thread its way over time through a number of companies, based here in Oklahoma and Texas. It is significant to draw attention to these developments, and I was asked earlier to improve the article by adding these citations to Engel’s Wikipedia article, which I did. All PR work at Mitchell, Devon, or Continental, during the years in which these companies effected these critical developments in the oil and gas industry, was done by Engel; some of the critical steps taken by these companies would not have been possible without good relationships in their communities. Therefore, in order to reveal the significance of Engel’s work at these companies, it is necessary to demonstrate the importance of the companies’ impacts and that his work at them enabled or strongly facilitated the atmosphere needed for them to make these critical developments. The purpose of the 4 references 1, 2, 3, and 20 was to demonstrate that these companies did effect such critical developments, while he worked there. Two additional references in the body of the article were lawsuit verdicts, which generated public reactions that Engel had to deal with in order for Mitchell Energy to have a reputation such that it could operate effectively. These references are given to demonstrate the enormity of the challenge. During this time, his innovative techniques were an important part of Mitchell Energy’s legal defense and helped the company to continue operating long enough for the lawsuit to be appealed and the verdict reversed.

Citations which do not mention Engel specifically, but do mention his program. -- References 8, 9 11, 18, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, and 31, do not mention Engel by name, but they mention his programs, mention their results, or provide a photo with him in it. It is known to many in the Oklahoma City region, where Devon’s and Continental’s headquarters are located and where Engel worked, that he requested that his name not appear in events’ press releases and stories. The fact that he was in the appropriate positions in these companies at the times during which the companies developed and implemented the programs should verify his role in the developments.

Citations which do mention Engel specifically in his role as PR expert. -- References 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 30, demonstrate significant coverage of Engel and should provide sufficient verification. These citations can be grouped according to the level of detail provided about the programs which Engel developed. (1) Great detail is given about Engel’s program(s); the creativity and innovation which he displayed by developing them are discussed. These are citations 6, 7, 14, 21, 24, 25, and 30. (2) The articles mention Engel’s programs generally, without details. These are citations 5, 13, 15, 16, and 17. (3) The articles discuss Engel’s programs, challenges he faced in the community, and the activities he used to meet those challenges. These are citations 4, 10, 12, 19, and 27. If it would help, I can make changes to his article which would reflect these patterns.

It is very rare that a publicist is truly notable themselves . . . . . I understand this sentiment can be valid, if a publicist is merely carrying out instructions given to him or her. However, in Engel’s case, documentation is provided showing that Engel made innovations to PR techniques at each oil and gas company where he worked. These innovations were subsequently adopted by other oil and gas companies, which thereby changed community-based PR for the upstream oil and gas industry as a whole. This situation is different and makes Engel notable.

. . . . . and I note that a large bulk of the article is not actually about the article-subject . . . . . See remarks above.

. . . . . and that many aspects of the article are misleading. For example, one image suggests he may be notable by saying that an image of him was used on the front page of Oil & Gas Magazine, but only his hand was actually included in the cover, which is routine for a publicist to act as an extra for a photo. I am confused by the remark “saying that an image of him was used on the front page” is “misleading.” The caption for the photo states “Engel representing Devon at the Bingerville Orphanage in Cote D’ Ivoire. A cropping from an analogous photo was used for the May 2004 cover of Oil and Gas Investor Magazine.” While it may be routine for a publicist to act as an extra for a photo, that was not the case in this instance, in which Engel designed and implemented the corporate outreach program.--DrDJNelson (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2013

Delete per nom. The citations don't provide significant coverage of the subject, however many of them there are.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - current biographies require much more reliable sourcing and in greater depth than this article has. I am sure that Brian Engel is a nice guy and a complete professional, but he appears to be a run of the mill executive -- a search of LinkedIn shows no less than 25 persons with the same name, and he comes in 8th amongst all Brian Engels, to which you can make your own conclusion. None of the awards cited are from major energy law or lobbying groups (say, NYSERDA or Pennsylvania Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living Festival). I have never heard of him, and a quick search on Google scholar (linked above) reveals nothing by him. His connection with George P. Mitchell is that of client and patron; one does not become notable due to such a relationship. Now, if he worked closely with George J. Mitchell, then that might be a different story, but it's not even arguable in this case. Oil and Gas Investor is a reliable source but not a notable publication; the two articles in their archive that mention him are not "awards" in the usual sense, but rather stories about executives who give back their time to communities. To suggest that he's won major awards is puffery at best and disingenuous at worst. I did find some sources c. 1969 about his tennis playing, but all of that was at the non-notable/amateur/non-Olympic level, so he fails WP:SPORTS. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 16 July 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. Though I am immediately recreating it as a redirect to John T. Knight, which mentions this institute. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hand and Wrist Institute[edit]

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

I have looked through the sources and I see nothing to indicate notability. The UK Huffington Post source only mentions this institute in one sentence. This article was created by a sockpuppet User:LAHealthVol, which in itself raises concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

qualifies for G5 and G11 in my opinion —rybec 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy and common sense (to help prevent this sort of thing in the future) is to speedy delete this article along with all the others in the sock case.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill, one-doctor practice. I found nothing but press releases at Google News Archive. I also searched under the name of the physician, since the website of the practice makes quite extraordinary claims for him, but I could not confirm any of them. (The extraordinary claims are not in the article so this turns out to be irrelevant, but I checked because if true they could have made him notable). --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the extent the doctor is notable, there's an article about him, and notability is not inherited. The practice is not notable. -- Scray (talk) 03:15, 16 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YATTA[edit]

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

This article was created in 2004 with no notability shown since then. I couldn't find any notability either. SL93 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, unlikely reliable sources exist. If this had been created today with the same text it likely would have been speedied within minutes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 15:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find evidence of encyclopedic relevance. This could not be speedied under exsiting criteria by the way. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 20 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website Builder (software)[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the article. No sources have been provided and my searches have not produced any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this software. GB fan 12:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software, fails WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor and basic piece of software. Article has no sources, only entries in Google seem to be site, and WP itself. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 00:16, 14 July 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) czar · · 05:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Albany death ray plot[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. Although the event did receive news coverage for a couple of days when the story broke, the coverage was very short-term in scope, and did not have any sort of lasting effect. Because the coverage was temporary, whereas notability is not, routine news coverage that the article received is not proof of notability, and I can see no mention of in-depth analysis of the situation. I'd say that this falls more under the category of WP:ROUTINE- just a failed, amateur terrorist plot. Slon02 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait, so that's what we've come to now? A terrorist plot to kill the President of the United States and others with a "death ray" is "routine"? Gildir (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Let's see, is this a run-of-the-mill "routine" crime story? Nope. A technician from General Electric, who is allegedly a Ku Klux Klan and Tea Party member, allegedly assisted by a computer expert and others, allegedly designed and built a remote-controlled Death ray device using high-powered X-ray equipment, which the FBI says would have worked to administer lethal radiation doses when completed had they not sabotaged it, to be operated near the target from inside a van,and allegedly contacted Jewish organizations and allegedly offered to use it to kill "enemies of Israel" including Muslims and President Obama. The FBI Counterterrorism Task Force then tracked the efforts from April 2012 until late June, when arrests were made as the device was allegedly being prepared for a test. "Failed?" Only because of FBI sabotage. "Amateur?" No, sounds quite competent and dangerous, and far beyond earlier "death ray" efforts. The "Keep" is downgraded to "Weak" due to there not being all that much continuing coverage since the story broke about 19 June 2013, tapering off surprisingly rapidly. If it is redirected to Death ray, where the alleged plot has a brief mention, than it could always be expanded into an article in the future if there are more developments and more coverage occurs. Edison (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we choose not to keep this page, then perhaps it should be moved to Wikinews, and this should be made an interwiki redirect? Other than that, I agree with the keep reasoning of Edison. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a unique and bizarre story, but made it to papers in every continent. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 13 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sona the Voice[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 22:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I've tagged the article as G11 and A7, as not only is it pretty unambiguously promotional, but there's nothing on the page to suggest that he's actually notable. Once you get past the puffery there's really not much to it. A search didn't bring up anything that would show that he would pass notability guidelines either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have declined the speedy delete, so please discuss this properly with a consensus outcome. There is not much promotion and some kind of claim of importance, but I don't think this meets WP:BAND. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not sure it's a G11, but it's definitely an A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know you are desperately want to get rid of this rubbish article, but this isn't the speedy deletion decision pages. The forms for contributing to an Afd are found here: WP:AFDFORMAT. scope_creep (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails [WP:BIO]]. scope_creep (talk) 23:38, 13 July 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.