< 17 July	19 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 delete. I'm willing to userfy upon request. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waimarino Adventure Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Waimarino Adventure Park

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

the adventure park is does not meet WP:GNG and is purely self promotional. The articles author was banned from Wiki, although I note that they seem to be now using a sock puppet NealeFamily (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm finding some sources such as this one about the kayaking and then there's this one that was already on the article. Other than that I'm finding stuff like this article about a ride malfunctioning. There are a few mentions in some travel books, but not really enough to where I'd say this really merits an article. As it is now, this could probably be speedied as pretty blatant promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd give the article a chance in case there was something that I had missed that meant it deserved to stay. As you say it is blatant promo. NealeFamily (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly an ad. Could possibly be retained if the advertorial content were removed, but only if sufficient independent sources were found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or delete Phrases like "just 10 minutes from" and "ethos of excellence" in Wikipedia's voice grate like chalk on a chalkboard...this is not material we want in mainspace as per WP:NOT. As for notability, references in the article are insufficient. There are hits on the web, Gbooks, and Gnews, but more research is needed. There is evidence that the business has attracted attention from Australia, and the site seems to be associated with preparation for the kayak event in the Olympics. Public attractions, well, they "attract attention" from the "world at large" as per the nutshell of WP:N. The company has been around since 1975, so likely more sources exist locally. A concern here is that I haven't found sources taking a look at this organization from the business viewpoint, such as investing.businessweek.com. The company legal name only has five hits on a Google search. What is annual income? What is peak attendance? On the other hand, I really like the pictures in this article. Businesses like this could help Wikipedia editors by including a "Media" tab on their website that lists sources that have given their organization a write-up. Is there a List of tourist attractions in Tauranga? Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of these types of activities around the country and this is no more or less notable than any of them - it's just another business as far as I can tell.NealeFamily (talk) 04:05, 25 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. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omri Altman[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid as playing in the qualifying rounds UEFA club competitions does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Omri has recently started his first ever season with the senior squad of Maccabi, therefor he is expected to obtain much more fixtures in the IPL. Razaviv5 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation as to what may happen in the future is never grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Champions League is a very prestigious competition. Why wouldn't a player that has played in the competition not be considered notable? --MicroX (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because his appearance was in the qualifying rounds, which do not receive nearly as much coverage as the competition proper. This is a well established consensus. It came up eight times at afd in the past year, that I'm aware of, with the result of the discussion being delete every time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hh is in the first team ahead of players who already have an article. It would be better to wait and not rush to write the article, but now it has been written, so it is better to wait with the deletion and wait for things to turn out. Yeshurun (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.. WP:TOOSOON. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Résumé candidate[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic political term with no references or good sources that I could find. The phrase only returns 22,000 Google hits, most related to job searches. Finally, the content of the article is deeply subjective. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & WP:NOR. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is encyclopedic, in the sense that a sourced article could be created. Whether the term is notable is another issue. FWIW, the nom uses a bit of nonsense to say "only 22,000" Ghits. Perhaps it just needs WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search through GNews archives suggests that the term has had some currency; for example, it was used with some frequency in connection with the first President Bush[1]. It's not clear to me, however, whether there's anything to say about the term beyond the fact that it's used.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:41, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air conditioner inverter[edit]

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

It is just one of the applications of inverter motor drive and the purpose of creation seems to be to promote disseminating commercial links and contents by vendors. The use of inverter drive for A/C is not unique enough to justify stand alone article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Could somebody explain what does the word wikt:inverter means? Simply that the motor can rotate in the opposite direction? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In electrical engineering, inverters generally refer to devices that provide AC power from DC. Inverter appliances that use "inverters" convert AC to DC, and it is resynthesized into AC. The creation of AC can be for getting standard 120 or 240v 50/60Hz power to provide standard receptacle from DC source (battery bank, automobile, etc) or to provide variable frequency output for control purposes. I find it unnecessary to have equipment-by-equipment inverter listing, such as washing machine inverter, air conditioner inverter, vacuum cleaner inverter, etc. etc. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is informative and useful for Wikipedia. Wikipedia contains many articles that may not be understandable to some readers but that is no reason to delete them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply It may appear informative, but it could very well be a bunch of gibberish from someone's personal knowledge which is highly likely to have misinformation. This article has been an host that attract low value commercial links placed by stakeholders who want increased traffic or brand awareness of their commercial venture. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't see a reason to take it down. The closest thing to deleting is to merge it to the Air conditioner article itself. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this article useful. It's not an ad since it doesn't promote any specific brands. - gdavisloop 24 July 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdavisloop (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the inverter and pulse-width modulator allow variable-speed operation makes this topic suitable for an article. Tendency of a topic to attract commercial links and cruft is not in itself grounds for deletion.--Srleffler (talk) 07:30, 27 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. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myne[edit]

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

Article about apparently non-notable online software. The article seems to have been copy-pasted from somewhere. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE - Mr X 22:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Copied at least in part from here [2]. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:28, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Stoltzfus[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF - there's no indication of significant impact of his work, hasn't won an award, been a part of a society, or satisfied any of the other criteria. The statements calling his book notable are not sourced. He seems to have only actually written one of the books listed; the others he co-edited. He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject did win an Fraenkel Prize from the Weiner Library in London, but that award is pretty obscure, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His main book "Resistance of the Heart"/"Widerstand des Herzens" does seem to have sparked discussion of the event covered; however possibly already adequately covered at Rosenstrasse protest. Possibly not enough for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below) ~~Comment~~ How can you judge if the Fraenkel Award in Contemporary History is obscure? It is awarded by the Wiener Library, "one of the world's leading and most extensive archives on the Holocaust and Nazi era". According to the information from this institution "The Wiener Library awards the internationally renowned Fraenkel Prize on an annual basis" and Nathan Stoltzfus is listed here:[3]. A book of Nathan Stoltzfus became also the "book of the year" of "The New Statesman" in 1997. It is easy to find secondary sources of this information, but the most important source would be The New Statesman itself. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the archivum of this journal (New Statesman;12/05/97, Vol. 126 Issue 4363, p42, according to [4]). By the way, the book was translated into German and French and it had about 11 editions. Does'nt it mean a notability? Moreover, there are several movies based on this book. According to Barbara Ass (Recovering Rosenstrasse)[5]: "his research led to several German- and English-language documentary films, for which he was writer and consultant. He’s now under contract as a consultant to an independent London film maker, who is writing a screenplay based on his book, Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. Published in 1996 by W.W. Norton & Co., the book has been highly acclaimed by the English press and by historians.". There is one more statement which I would like to comment: He also does not inherit notability because a notable person writes a forward to a translation. (by MSJapan). Of course, it is truth but please do not stop on the fact that Joshka Fisher had written the foreword to the book of Stoltzfus. Instead of that, please read what Joshka Fisher wrote about Nathan Stoltzfus and about his role in revealing the "shocking" history of Rosenstrasse Protest in nazi Germany. Tescobar (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New Statesman book of the Year is sufficient for notability as an author. I am not familiar with the Fraenkel Prize, but it can only add to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't read the New Statesman for some years but I don't recall it ever awarding a single Book of the Year? What I do recall is that - as with Sunday papers, The Spectator, etc. - in December each of their reviewers selected several of their own favourite books of the year. The wording in this article does say "a" rather than "the" Book of the Year, and judging from the link above Joan Bakewell chose it as one of her three; a compliment in itself, but not quite the magazine's Book of the Year. AllyD (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed up on this, and this article (as well as the others in the search) makes it clear that these are contributor choices of multiple works, and no other source uses the singular in reference to the magazine's annual list. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article from Die Zeit (one of the most important newspaper in Germany): [6] and its second part: [7]. The article mentions that Nathan Stoltzfus started a public debate about one of the most controversial episode of the Nazi German history - the Rosenstrasse protest. His research was crucial to reveal some facts about the protest and also for its interpretation in the context of the discussion of possibility of defeating nasizm by means of peacefull protests. Also the "Die Zeit" editors in the introduction to an article of Nathan Stoltzfus (30 October 2003) identified Resistance of the Heart as the "standard work" on the Rosenstasse protest.
Calling the Fraenkel Prize obscure reflects the paltry knowledge of the editor who wrote this. The winners are listed at: [8]. They include - in category A, which Nathan Stoltzfus received - various academics at the top of the field of contemporary European History, many of them having Wikipedia biographic articles, or at least cited as authors of papers and books. Tescobar (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paltry? Claim any sort of degree you want; I don't claim any.

I have yet to see any academic literature on the prize where it isn't being mentioned in passing as relates to a winner. Besides, if the Fraenkel Prize doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, how notable could it be? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Tescobar, the article in Die Zeit is simply a claim that a previous article in Die Zeit written by Stoltzfus was influential. It is neither independent nor significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.(see below) I have access to the cited issue of The New Statesman and can confirm that Joan Bakewell was one of many prominent people to name their three books of the year, and there is no more than a bare mention of the book. I can't see any other claim of notability or significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let us compare the Fraenkel Prize with the other prizes and awards in the field of history. I checked number of google search results for this prize and several other (draft by random from the category:History awards) :

the Fraenkel Prize - 107 000 results
the Hattendorf Prize - 2 130 results,
the Gladstone Prize - 45 500 results,
the Holberg Prize - 116 000 results,
the Thirlwall Prize - 33 800 results,
the Cundill Prize - 8 700 results,
the Dexter Award - 12 000 results,

Of course, these results are very rough, some of these awards are known under other (full or shortened) names, but it is very likely, that the Fraenkel Prize is much more popular and renowned than a vast majority of awards already described in wikipedia. By the way, there is a page List of history awards - "a list of notable awards given to persons, group of persons or institutions for their contribution to the study of history". Please read this list. It is completely random, don't you think so? Summerizing, please do not use a presence of an article in Wikipedia as a criterion for notability. Notability should be a criterion for a presence in Wikipedia, but the opposite statement is not true. Tescobar (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and this is actually a prime example of why that is so; here you are very much comparing apples and oranges. The awards you listed are given out in history (to varying degrees), but for very different reasons and under very different criteria. Hattendorf is given out by the Naval War College for the area of new academic naval history, every two years. The Gladstone is annual, for books published in Britain on non-British history. The Holberg is ten years old and is given in Norway in the wider area of humanities. Add to that that the subject didn't win any of these, and there's no real reason to follow this line of thought. Now, focusing on what he did win, and looking at Fraenkel criteria and winners here, it's often a jointly (and when Stoltzfus got it, triply) awarded prize in two categories at once, given by a library that focuses on Holocaust studies for books in its areas of interest. A better view of GHits is that the third one I got was the H-Net posting for entries, confirming that authors submit their own work without any screening prior to submission. Thus, there are no independent reliable sources for this award - it's either the library itself, or the schools announcing that their faculty have won it. So if the prize isn't notable, neither is anyone who wins it notable for doing so. MSJapan (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. (see below on 21 July for comment re: !vote revision) I look to WP:AUTHOR for this one rather than wp:prof, since his book seems more notable than his professorship. It is not, however, notable enough to make it's author notable. The only criteria that has a chance here is "person has created...a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't find evidence of that here. PS: the discussion of the Fraenkel award seems moot to me. Were it a major award, it would confer notability on the book, not necessarily the author. (IMHO) - Wine Guy~Talk 00:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let us assume that the Fraenkel Prize is meaningless and moreover does not contribute to the notability of Nathan Stoltzfus, but only to the notability of his book. As far as his professorship is concerned, I would not say that he is notable as an academic professor. But as a researcher, he - certainly - is notable. He is the first and most important expert on Rosenstrasse protest - his work revealed the facts which have been ignored in post-war Germany and shed new light not only on the Rosenstrasse protest, but also on the problem of responsibility for Holocaust. According to Barbara Ass opinion[9]: Until Stoltzfus began researching the Rosenstrasse incident in 1985, the protest had received little attention, aside from a handful of brief newspaper articles. Nobody knew about it, it was like a non-event. Stoltzfus contradicted leading German historians, who had tried to remove responsibility of "ordinary Germans" for the expansion of fascism. This is not my opinion, I am trying to summarize the statements of Barbara Ass: The notion that an ordinary German could do nothing against the Holocaust, that a handful of crazed Nazis were responsible for the murder of Jews, has been the official accepted wisdom in Germany since the war. The aforementioned article (of Barbara Ass) convinced me, that Nathan Stoltzfus not only researched one of the most important chapter of contemporary history, but also has changed its perception / interpretation. This is the reason why I added his biography to the Wikipedia and why I am sure that he satisfies the first criterion of WP:PROF, i.e. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline and also the 7-th: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.. The awards, as well as his career as an academic professor, are matter of minor importance. According to the biographic notes from "Who's who in the world" and "Cambridge University Press"[10] he was named an H. F. Guggenheim Foundation Research Scholar and has received research grants from the Fulbright Commission, IREX, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the German Academic Exchange Commission (DAAD), and the Albert Einstein Institution. - even if these achievements make them an "average professor", his research and impact of his research is outstanding and much more notable than the professorship by itself. Tescobar (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply ... I'll try to make this quick. I do appreciate your passion for the topic, unfortunately you have bolstered my opinion that while Prof. Stolzfus may be an excellent historian, he's not notable by WP standards. Lots of great people aren't. A few points: 1) Barbara ASH (not Ass as you have referred to her) appears to be a Communications/Media Relations Manager at the same University as Stoltzfus, she's promoting the work of one of the universities professors. 2) While Marquis Who's Who is can be considered a reliable source, it is generally not considered enough to establish notability. This has been discussed periodically over the years, here's one discussion, there are several more like it. 3) Many, many professors have gotten plenty of research grants, in many fields they wouldn't be professors if they didn't. I could go on, but I think that's enough to make my humble opinion known. -Wine Guy~Talk 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tragicomic misspelling of her name - the English language is full of traps... Right, she is related to the same university, so that her review should not be taken into consideration. I did not knew about it. Tescobar (talk) 20:50, 18 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, postdlf (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In its "Books of the Year" section New Statesman asks the "best living reviewers" to identify the "best books of the year" (three books each. The section leads with prominent Reviewer JOAN BAKEWELLwho leads her choice of three books with: "Resistance of the Heart by Nathan Stoltzius (Norton, L21) tells the story of the Rosenstrasse protests in Nazi Germany when women married to Jews rebelled and won their freedom. Here is human interest interwoven with scholarship. Had resistance to Hitler been as outspoken as were these brave women, he would have caved in." Average available space per book is ca. one sentence. Other academic historians on this same 1997 list --rare on this New Statesmen list --are: Richard J Evans' In Defence of History (Granta,L15.99) Charles S Maier's Dissolution (Princeton University Press, L21.95) See Books of the year (Dec 5, 1997): 42-46. at http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/docview/224378415/abstract/13F6211220369E5159C/31?accountid=4840

As for the Ernst Fraenkel prize, the one Stoltzfus received was "category A," the most prominent of two annual awards with a prize of $6,000. (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Fraenkel-Prize). It is given for the best new manuscript in Twentieth Century History (not "on Holocaust studies."). Stoltzfus was not one of three winners as "Stoltzfus got it, triply awarded" might suggest, but was co-winner with Mark Mazower. The process of selection for the Fraenkel is questioned here, but the prize is selected by the Institute's library's Academic Advisory Board: Prof Richard Bessel, Prof Jane Caplan, Prof Christopher Clark, Prof Sir Richard Evans, Prof Elizabeth Harvey, Prof Cornelie Usborne (http://www.wienerlibrary.co.uk/Governance). Judging by the recipients of the Category A Fraenkel Prize, the selection process works well: a recent (2012) winner is Mary Fulbrook preceded by Paul Betts, Neil Gregor, Stanislao Pugliese, Atina Grossmann, Helmut Walser Smith, Mark Roseman, Robert Moeller, Joanna Bourke, Vicki Caron, Jeffrey Herf, Marion Kaplan, Omer Bartov, and Richard J Evans as well as Nathan Stoltzfus. These were chosen among others chosen because their research, in the words of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." In various cases the Fraenkel Prize is the sole book prize these awardees have since more famous prizes like the Pulitzer for example are very rarely issued to historians of modern Europe.

An article by Barbara Ash is criticized as unreliable simply because Ash is a writer for the university where Stoltzfus teaches, but discrediting can occur only by pointing out inaccuracies.Similarly, criticism that information on Stoltzfus' page is found on a Wikipedia page for the Rosenstrasse Protest is also inapposite since Wikipedia guidelines are that "If the article duplicates another, you can redirect it to the other one; there's no need for it to be deleted first."

Stoltzfus' page is established primarily for his impact. As Die Zeit just reported on February 27, 2013 ( http://www.zeit.de/wissen/geschichte/2013-02/fabrikaktion-rosenstrasse-berlin-ns-protest-1943): After the war the protest action in the Rosenstrasse was a long almost forgotten episode of Nazi history. When U.S. historian Nathan Stoltzfus wrote in 1989 about the demonstration he unleashed an "ongoing controversy." Writing of his impact generally, then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wrote in 2000 that "The women of the Rosenstrasse will, thanks to Nathan Stoltzfus, take their well-deserved place in the so contradictory history of the German resistance against the brown barbarism." (see the translation on http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm)

In the mid-1980s Stoltzfus had Fulbright Commission and IREX grants to live in East and West Germany to study the Rosenstrasse Protest as the first to publish scholarship on this protest. His publications on the Rosenstrasse Protest in public intellectual forums included Die Zeit (July, 21, 1989, [International edition, July 28, 1989]) in German and the The Atlantic Monthly, September, 1992, in English. He published an article on the Rosenstrasse Protest in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 21(2), Spring, 1995, and his book Resistance of the Heart (WW Norton: 1995) was translated into German, French, Greek and Swedish. His co-edited book Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany including his work on intermarried couples in Nazi Germany was translated into Turkish, and his work has also been published in Russian: “Protest Nemetskih v usloviyah total’noyi voiny,” in Women and War, 1941-1945: Russia and Germany, N. Vashkay, ed. (Volgograd: Volgograd Center of German Studies: 2006).

The impact of Stoltzfus' work could be documented in many ways other than translations and the many responses it has generated inside and outside of academia. In its German translation Resistance of the Heart placed second on the Bestenliste of Best non-fiction books, October 1999. In Swedish it was the Main Selection, March-April, 2004 Clio-Den historiska bokklubben (Clio-The Historical Book Club), Stockholm. According to Joschka Fischer (http://www.chambon.org/rosenstrasse_fischer_en.htm) Resistance of the Heart tells of "humanity against a total dictatorship bent on human destruction, a dictatorship against which, according to one of the most persistent post-war legends went, 'one supposedly couldn’t do anything anyway.' The other legend was: 'We didn’t known anything about it.' . . . There is a second message in this book, which lifts it above the vast literature about National Socialist times. Stoltzfus wrote this remarkable chapter from the darkest years of German history in such a way, that the dimension of freedom of decision and therefore individual responsibility does not disappear. . . The courage and the unexpected success of the women of the Rosenstrasse are like a light in the abysmal darkness of those years. But what about all the others?"

The academic impact can be measured by citations according to Wikipedia which suggests using the Web of Knowledge database to identify citations. This measure, comparing other academic historians in Stoltzfus' field who have a Wikipedia page, is based on a search using complete names as well as last name and first initial.) Historian with Wikipedia article in field Number of Citations Andreas Daum 16

Wolf Gruner 15

Harold Marcuse 12

Richard Steigman-Gall 9

Nathan Stoltzfus 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milnae (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you wrote a lot, you didn't at all address Wikipedia notability criteria. You mentioned that the previous winner of the Fraenkel Prize was Mary Fulbrook. As a history undergrad, I've read her work and she's a well-known researcher of German history. Same goes for Konrad Jarausch. Neither one of them meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please accept that not every accomplished prolific academic is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- widely held book by a top press, plus substantial reviews, and appearances on significant lists (New Statesman book of the Year) satisfies WP:PROF#C1; One of the delete votes said that there would need to be multiple, independent reviews of the book. Both the article's citations and a check on worldcat or JSTOR shows that this is definitely true. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this was not a New Statesman book of the year. It was one of Joan Bakewell's books of the year. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MSCuthbert. Without the prize book/auther still notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On further investigation and reflection prompted by Mscuthbert I accept that reviews at JSTOR 41444602, JSTOR 41401397 and JSTOR 1433589, along with the 722 library holdings listed by Worldcat, are enough for notability. Tescobar and Milnae, who have remarkably similar writing styles, might like to note that a clear, succinct argument based on evidence is far more persuasive than lengthy, mostly irrelevant ramblings. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, write me which part of my argumentation is "irrelevant rambling"? Thanks in advance - Tescobar (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on !vote revision above. I too have investigated and reflected further, and have revised my !vote of 17 July from delete to neutral regarding Prof. Stoltzfus. It seems to me that a great deal of the rather lengthy discussion here revolves around the book Resistance of the Heart, not around the author, Stoltzfus. I have come to believe that the book is indeed notable, and would support keeping an article about the book, if WP had one. We don't currently have such an article, so I can't recommend redirecting Nathan Stoltzfus → Resistance of the Heart. I remain unconvinced that the prof./author is notable in his own right; I don't see that he "has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", but perhaps I'm being overly semantic. So, it is in the interest of consensus building—and in the hope that it will help prevent the closing admin from tearing their hair out—that I've revised my opinion. -Wine Guy~Talk 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just have changed my first vote from "comment" to "keep". I did not know that I could vote (in Polish wikipedia the main author of an article cannot vote). Tescobar (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that according to the guidelines it is clear that the article should remain. As indicated by the wide discussion and debate he has spurred (as indicated by the articles, reviews, and prizes he has received, many of which specifically cite the pioneering nature of his research) Stoltzfus is notable for his impact, both in his field and in the broader intellectual community. He is also widely cited, according to the citation source recommended by the guidelines as well as other authoritative sources. His impact is not limited to his book Resistance of the Heart, although that is his most well known work, but is based on the ideas he advances not only in that wbook but in other books and articles as well. I would also note that the argument for deletion seems to be charactized, at least in some of the comments, by "excessive zeal," which the guidelines cite as a negative point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Another keep vote from a brand-new user. I'm curious how this discussion became so popular so quickly. Say what you want about zeal, the criteria for notability are what they are. I'm an inclusionist and prefer to keep content on the wiki, but we all have to play by the rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. Yet, as an experienced user / editor of pl.wikipedia, I can say that the number of brand-new users in AFD is proportional to the notability of a subject. There is also another possible reason of voting as an anonymous user rather than as a regular (but not well known and respected) user - it is the probability of retaliation. How does it work? Some logged user X, with non-zero contribution, votes in AFD. Another user Y, much more experienced than X, checks contribution of X and nominates his/her articles for deletion. Using sock-puppets, although illegal in votings, could be a method to avoid such a revenge-action. Unfortunately I did not know about this when I voted for "keep" in this discussion. Several hours later all my articles (i.e. this one:-) were nominated for deletion. This is how it works. I am sure, that the nomination of Nathan Stoltzfus for deletion, 4 years after I had created this article, was strictly related with my "keep" vote in another discussion. Of course, the reason of nomination does not matter - if a subject of nominated article does not meet the criteria of notability, the article should be deleted.Tescobar (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the notability criteria for academics are met here, as discussed above, in particular criterion number one. It is met in several ways: the number of citations, including according to numbers obtained using one of the two sources listed in the rules under "citation metrics," web of knowledge; significant awards and prestguous fellowships (Frankel prize, fullbright). Stoltzfus also seems to come under the notability criteria for creative professionals, specifically criterion number 3; he has created significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. I comment here only on the article itself, rather than other users, consistent with discussion guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to share Tescobar's and Milnae's lack of focus on the relevant. There are reasons to consider Stoltzfus notable, but getting a research grant from the Fullbright Commission is far from being one of them. As regards Web of Knowledge, when I do a search with

AU=(Stoltzfus N*) Refined by: Web of Science Categories=( HISTORY OR SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERDISCIPLINARY OR HUMANITIES MULTIDISCIPLINARY ) Timespan=All years. Databases=BKCI-S, SSCI, BKCI-SSH, SCI-EXPANDED, A&HCI, IC, CPCI-SSH, CPCI-S, CCR-EXPANDED

I find find five citations, one of them a self-citation. What parameters are you using to find more citations? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Phil, that the new users who haven't contributed elsewhere make me question whether a keep vote (which as I said above I believe is right) actually will help improve the encyclopedia and keep it neutral. But I will say that in the humanities it's well known that Web of Science is absolutely terrible at finding citations in part because it doesn't understand humanities footnote formats (esp. references in discursive footnotes). I publish in science and humanities forums (digital humanities being like that...) and I know from my own searches/reading journals, that I get about the same number of cities in each. But almost every citation I get from science journals/proceedings/etc. gets picked up by WoS, Google Scholar, etc. only a tiny fraction (maybe 10%?) of the humanities citations get picked up there, and that's only in the past 3 years; before that, when humanities journals online weren't native PDFs, but just OCR scans, it was even worse. Hence why I think library holdings of books are much more accurate. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, and I have already given a keep opinion partially based on library holdings. I was just interested to know what the basis was for Frege1978's claim that Web of Science came up with a significant number of citations, because, even allowing for the anti-humanities bias, I don't think that four non-self citations can be considered significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I read that part of his comments as listing some of the ways that people have generally been considered notable, not as an argument for notability of NS. I see now that your interpretation was right, but it doesn't matter here. As we've both said, there's enough else out there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His book Resistance of the Heart seems to me to have made a sufficient impact to render its author notable and for us to have a page on him useful. In addition to the "things" about it mentioned in the text the following reviews might be helpful:

Bessel, Richard 1997. "Resistance of the Heart - Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi Germany". Times Literary Supplement: 27.

Schilde, K. 1997. "Nathan Stoltzfus: Resistance of the Heart. Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany. New York/London 1996". ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GESCHICHTSWISSENSCHAFT -BERLIN- VEB DEUTSCHER VERLAG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN. 45 (9): 862.

Haag, John. 1998. "[Review of] Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany". The Georgia Review. 52 (2): 384-387. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikepedia's notability criteria for academics includes, as nimber one, number of citations. The criteria include a section called "citation metrics" that states: "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." I entered Nathan Stoltzfus as "author" in Web of Knowledge and found 17 citations. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_"academics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frege1978 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you found 17 papers by Nathan Stoltzfus, not 17 citations to those papers. In fact your search finds no citations whatsoever, because his only papers with any citations were published under N. Stoltzfus, not Nathan Stoltzfus. To do the search properly you need to put Stoltzfus N* in the author field and then use the panel on the left to refine the search by deselecting mathematics and pharmacology from the categories because those papers are clearly by other people called N. Stoltzfus. Selecting "create citation report" will then tell you that my figures above are correct. This discussion is a bit of a side issue because there is a clear consensus, including me, to keep the article on other grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 26 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) 16:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam

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

Non-notable pro wrestling event. Only thing close to a source currently on the article is a cached Geocities page that is a general running list of Deep South Wrestling results. A Google search of "DSW Six Flags Park Slam" turns up very limited results about this specific event. No evidence can be found stating it was ever taped and/or aired on pay-per-view. It is not an event promoted by World Wrestling Entertainment as the article claims, but by one of their developmental territories. The article was originally proposed for deletion; the PROD was contested but no reason was given. Gogen (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per OP. — Richard BB 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable house show. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have said, there's a notability problem.LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's a WWE PPV, it's definitely notable. Just because it was marketed specifically to Georgians doesn't mean it lacks notability. That's like saying we should delete Robert H. May because very few people outside Augusta, GA will know about him. I think this article definitely means the GNG. It definitely should be expanded upon, but being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. Feedback ^☎ 23:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment -- notability is not inherited, so the fact that it's a WWE PPV is irrelevant. — Richard BB 16:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is NOT a WWE pay-per-view, nor is it even a WWE house show. It is a Deep South Wrestling house show. Gogen (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drew 400 people, described as not faring as well as their first time out. Absolutely no indication of WWE co-promotion or TV (PPV or free), or anything else that would make this stand out from the rest (except the poorer attendance). If any of the Six Flags shows deserved an article, it would be their next one, described as the "best show in the history of the company". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 23 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Fayez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is the Iraqi Premier League not a professional league? --MicroX (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, which I doubt, it's not confirmed as such. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above SOXROX (talk) 14:26, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Lekvtadze[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Finnegas (talk) 20:27, 24 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church (Panama City, FL)[edit]

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

Sources are all primary or passing mention. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church is one of Panama City's most prominent and historical foundations, as I am ready to prove. I have the resources to add more secondary and primary resources alike.Carwile2 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do, as otherwise your comment is simply arguing that WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's centennial book that was published on the church's history, a $20 million church building was recently complete, there was a murder and some other news coverage but I don't see anything substantial enough or significant enough to warrant inclusion. Architectural history? Social significance? Maybe it can be merged to a broader subject and covered there? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some things that I forgot, but can mention: there is social significance, because it seems that things happen there all the time! They have had a Veggie Tales Live! show this past March, as well as other numerous guests and shows, including the Annie Moses Band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwile2 (talk • contribs)

None of which is an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; It's the largest organization in Panama City. It's existed more than 100 years, and is on the list for the largest churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carwile2 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source establishing that information? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here (Pg 93), and here. Carwile2 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in news and in a history of the town. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But will someone please tell the author how to do book citations. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do admit that I have really only focused on web references, but I will learn and cite it correctly, if someone else doesn't cite it first.Carwile2 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE, or check out what other articles do. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I forgot to mention, the church is so prominent, it has its own television ministry. The program occurs 4-5 times a week on the major cable providers, and once every Sunday on satellite TV. ^[1]. I will make note to add that to the article soon. Carwile2 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a primary source, and don't vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a primary, but it does assert notability. Besides, I can prove it with a secondary alternative Carwile2 (talk) 18:16, 12 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) 17:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources on my subject which establish notability in response to The Bushranger:

http://www.city-data.com/city/Panama-City-Florida.html
http://thomrainer.com/2013/01/26/largest-churches-in-the-southern-baptist-convention/
http://panamaed.wordpress.com/
"And Twelve Came Forward", a Centennial History: First Baptist Church Panama City, Florida 1908-2008
"Images of America: Panama City". Glenda A Walker Carwile2 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The City Data site and a Wordpress blog are not reliable sources. The book from the church itself is a Primary source. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few points to redirect to your response:

Explain to me how the City Data site is "not reliable". As for the blog, I do agree that there is no way of charting reliability, but it does assert notability (although it may not matter at this point).

Your original statement is incorrect now: "Sources are all primary or passing mention. No assertation of notability."

~~"Sources are all primary..."~~: There are references in my article that are secondary

~~"...or passing mention."~~: I do believe that a whole bunch of the history section was based on Glenda A. Walter's book.

~~"No assertion of notability."~~: This discussion has brought forth evidence of notability.

Does the prosecution wish to redirect? Carwile2 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS. A personal blog on Wordpress is never reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete but keeping an open mind. Not a notable historical site and I'm not convinced of historical notability otherwise. This tool] will create proper citations for Google Books sources. The easier it is for people to find your sources, the easier it is to convince them this institution is notable. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Wordpress blog is not reliable, my proof that the statement for deletion is irrelevant still stands without the source. As for Gamaliel, thank you for your tool for book sources. I may have to send an email to the Bay County library, so that they may settle this issue once and for all by determining historic significance. I will send them one very soon, and get back when I get a reply. Carwile2 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still conversing with the Bay County Library, but if you are not convinced of historical or architectural significance, feel free to browse the Church and Church Building catalogs here Carwile2 (talk) 02:08, 24 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. Wizardman 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Swiggs[edit]

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

I do not see that there is any sufficiently notable accomplishment for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Swiggs is a highly influential person in Christchurch, and has the same standing as Sam Johnson (activist) from the SVA. LukeChandlerNZ ( talk ) 11:42PM, 9 July 2013 NZST

Comment I'm an avid reader of the Christchurch Press and cannot remember even a single article that mentions him (I do see that the article references The Press, though), whereas Sam Johnson gets very frequently reported. My experience thus does not align with LukeChandlerNZ's statement above. Schwede 66 18:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can say that you must not be reading it as often as I do to see him mentioned quite a bit, 'The Press' shows that there is 16 results for him. And this article paints him in the same light as Johnson ^[2] LukeChandlerNZ ( talk ) 12:32 PM NZST July 11 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was researching Swiggs for a him to present key note presentation on community resilience for us and found this wiki useful. Have also tried to add more content to the page to make it more substantial. Diamante123 ( talk ) 11:42PM, 10 July 2013 NZST
Keep as a quick look through the article and media coverage points to national interest in him. Not as high as some of the people involved in the quakes, but certainly enough to meet WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 10:31, 18 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) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I would invite the closing admin to give lower weight to the posts by the two very new users above. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Un sure if you've read WP:BIO but I suggest you check again. LukeChandlerNZ ( talk ) 29 July 2013 7:43pm NZST —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough media coverage. A few of the sources are published by the subject or his organisation. The closing admin should note that Diamante123 (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of LukeChandlerNZ (talk · contribs). —Adabow (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only have one user on here, cheers. LukeChandlerNZ ( talk ) 29 July 2013 7:40pm NZST —Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 29 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. Wizardman 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vulfpeck and Vollmilch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vulfpeck

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

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

NN band and its album. Contested prod. Previously discussed was its other album, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mit Peck. -- Y not? 18:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The 3 sources in the article are not substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Which other criteria are met? As far as I can tell, none of the 12 listed criteria in WP:BAND are met, and as I noted above, the lack of coverage means that WP:GNG is not met either. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Radio play. Backed independently notable musicians. --Jbass3586 (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see no evidence that they been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network, and being backing musicians for notable musicians is not an inclusion criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 23:01, 11 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) 17:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:26, 28 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) 16:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor football tournaments[edit]

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

Nominated per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MicroX (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication that these tournaments, as a group, are of encyclopaedic interest. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates the concept behind List of association football competitions (which is incomplete - there is potential for a merge). No explanation or definition is given for the term "minor tournament". Hack (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there is anything in the list that could/should be in List of association football competitions then they should be added. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 11:17, 22 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. Per WP:SNOW, it's evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 17:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marte Dalelv rape incident[edit]

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

Only a new as many others, and not supported by reliable sources (it could be a hoax) Lenore (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article only contains the story from the alleged victims point of view. There are no official statements from the courts or UAE authorities. The story is based entirely on the word of one woman. This story is very new and maybe in a few weeks when all of the facts have emerged, it can be considered for inclusion. --Tbailess (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! Newspaper articles etc. if we should wait for official statements etc. from the courts of each country (which would owns a constitution far away from the basic law or similar etc.) it would be a strange POV etc; Compare also human rights articles in the Wikipedia etc. to this country etc. Sorry. Lutheran from Germany etc. Your argumentation is far away from something I would understand ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article! This story is part of a much bigger arc of events. Dubai has been eager to attract western business but still clings to a tribal legal code that has no place in the modern world. This story should be part of a portal on violence against women and lack of justice for women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.186.165 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be improved. It is a testimony to how UAE regards human rights. User: RuneT —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a really important article, putting light on an important event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.213.35 (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see the references which are all major Norwegian media, with comments from the Foreign Minister of Norway. The woman herself has commented too. Why do you believe that this is a hoax? Liquid Water 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock, indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this block? Jeblad (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I accidentally struck out the wrong comment, it's User:LiquidWater who was blocked.) It's not my block, I'm not an admin. See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- because there aren't official declarations from dubai prosecutors. Often us/european citizens committ crimes in foreign countries and then report their story in a tendentious way, as in this case http://phuketwan.com/tourism/phukets-cry-rape-liar-tell-australian-show-16564/ anyway, this case is surely not-enciclopedic. --Lenore (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well referenced and has received a lot of press attention and has been commented on by the Foreign Minister. If she is lying (beware of BLP please), it can be edited later. Liquid Water 17:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC) See above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if you should be right and it is a hoax, it has been so widely covered that a Wikipedia article is appropriate Kyrsjo (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claimin this isa an hoax would be strange as this has become an international political incident. This [11] is one of several articles about how the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is reacting to the case. Espen Barth Eide is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Jeblad (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the article should be improved, this is too important to delete. It is a testimony to how UAE regards human rights.Laserlasse (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is written like if it is about the woman rather than the incident ("Marte Deborah Dalelv (born 1988) is a Norwegianwoman who was sentenced...") "The incident" is vague, as is it the alleged rape, or the case where she was sent to prison because of her sexual conduct violiting UAE's laws? It is also lacking some essecial bricks for verifiability, like noone is prosecuted or convicted for the alleged rape. Further, it is only her version which got media attention, and it is her word only for this case being a rape. The upside for keeping the article, is, her story about the alleged rape do have achieved at least major national attention, by several of the largest media publishers in Norway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the incident is notable it does not need to be deleted rather rewritten. Mike (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, covered by numerous international sources, needs work. Mike (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an entry about a non-moslem woman being prosecuted and sentenced to a year-long prison term, for extramarital sex. The alleged rapist was also sentenced to prison on the same charge (viz. not for rape but for extramarital sex). This merits an entry, even though the article could be improved, no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.73.76 (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but there should probably be a Rename like simply The Marte Dalelv case. This is widely covered in Norwegian media with a lot of leading Norwegian politicans commenting on it (which is somewhat rare in Norway, as politicians will normally be very careful about commenting about specific criminal cases). Also some international coverage. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename. numerous international coverage sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not the first time that this happens in Dubai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markuswinter (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was also today in German (Main) News TV on Sat.1 etc. Name Marte Dalelv was also named as the key word and that it is dangerous for woman in Dubai, because there exits under the conditions of the Sharia (yes, such incidents are not new ...) no law legal security - this was the closing word of the report of Sat1. --- Beside that German News also reporting about it and so on. (e.g. Googel for German Newspapers) So it is a news in several countries I suppose ... Worldwide interest ... The German newspaper Bild online reported about it (Bild is the bestselling newspaper outside Japan compare Bild). The headline is: "„Boykottiert Dubai!“ – Die Welt ist empört" --- translated: "Boycott Dubai!" - The world is outraged: http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/skandale/reaktionen-urteil-vergewaltigung-31408622.bild.html ; So it's more than a Clear Keep it --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC) By the way: not as an article to a person, which could bring it to the near of an erase; compare also Wikipedia:Bio, this would the false path, because the incident, the case and so on are the relevant thinks. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-sourced, notable, illustrates a serious problem in the Middle East of blaming the victim in rape. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is important even if the person itself might not be notable. The article itself can be extended and verified through references as we go, and as seems necessary. That discussion should although be on the articles discussion page and not here. Jeblad (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable international news magazines as the Spiegel [12] and notable international newspapers as Le Monde [13]talk about it - shows clearly that the affairs has an international dimension Christophe Neff (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article quotes Spiegel, Le Monde, BBC, USA Today, The Associated Presss, Al Jazeera, and more. This shows notability and international dimension. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.98.210 (talk • contribs) 06:48, July 20, 2013‎ (UTC)
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razumny (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widespread and diverse international coverage makes this pass WP:GEOSCOPE. There is depth of coverage as well, with the reactions of various parties garnering separate news stories. Time will tell whether this will see continued coverage beyond the outcome of the appeal, but we may already be seeing a lasting effect with Norwegian colleges severing ties with The One. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 12:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is relevant and could be useful. E3 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // Gargaj (talk) 15:09, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of God of War: Ascension downloadable content[edit]

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

I would like some editors to give their input on how does this pass wp:GNG. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and although there's a lot of primary sources, those sources are confirming the release of the content. I personally believe this AfD is unnecessary and could have easily been discussed elsewhere before taking this measure. --JDC808 ♫ 21:31, 7 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) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too excessive detailed. We don't generally summarize DLC in this fashion, and only call it out in prose if its notable (in limited cases, like the GTA IV episodes, it may even get its own article, but that's because it includes reception details). --MASEM (t) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess these could be AfD'd too, eh? (1, 2). They don't have reception and have a lot of primary sources. On top of that, far more detailed. --JDC808 ♫ 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an improper argument, though I'm not saying that the LBP DLC lists are appropriate. However, here, most of what this list is is DLC gear, which falls under GAMEGUIDE type stuff. Noting in the main article that special gear was offered, sure. But we don't need the level of breakdown here to cover that. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I wasn't saying that "because those exist, this should to", I was saying that "because this is being AfD'd for reasons stated, shouldn't those be as well?" In regards specifically to the contents of this list, this info was too excessive in the main article, which is why this list was made. To use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a proper argument, that's why other lists of DLC were created (such as LBP, Mass Effect, and all of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero ones). --JDC808 ♫ 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this, as usually, I feel that this sort of things is WP:GAMECRUFT or non-notable, but it really is well written and organized. Have the DLC received much in the way of coverage/review/criticism/etc? I'd be more inclined to lean one way or another if there was anything in the way of "Development" or "Reception" like content to be tagged on somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything (reliable wise at least) on reviews/criticism, but there is some coverage (I'll find more and add it). There was some new stuff released today, so that may bring about some reviews soon. --JDC808 ♫ 00:36, 12 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, czar · · 18:44, 15 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) 16:56, 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. However, I would counsel User:Dimension10 against WP:BLUDGEONing future AFD discussions. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hořava–Witten string theory[edit]

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

No evidence of existence of such theory. The term does not show in google searches, nor in the references given. The article is heavily based on a single self-published source, but how it follows from it is unclear. Other references are in support of well-known things about string theory. So I'd say it is a dubious original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "self-published"? It is certainly not my work, and is thus, not self-published. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article was created before. And yes, the topics are related (this is M-theory with a HW boundary, the Townsend one is just M-theory with a toroidal ckompactification) , so it is natural that the articles look the same. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the article was deleted because adminstrators refused to actually check the references. Dimension10 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Urs Schreiber has an article about this at nCat lab, strongly suggesting the notability of the article. See [14] and the references therein. The original articles by Hořava and Witten together have over 4000 citations (see [15]), again pointing to the notability of the theory. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this article published in Phys Rev D about the theory (and itself gets over 250 gs cites). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The improved referencing makes clear that this is not just the work of an isolated unpublished paper (as if that weren't already obvious from the level of citation to that paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep and add citations Horava-Witten string theory is certainly a very reknown string theory. Calling it "Original Research" is foolishness. This is the Horava - Witten paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510209. I'll be adding the citation to it soon. P.S. And unlike ViXrA, ArXiV is certainly a reliable source. If you a're planning to delete it because ArXiV isn't a reliable source, then there are maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany articles you should be deleting as they are on ArXiV but not in a "reliable journal". It is known widely that Horava - Witten string theory is M - theory with a Horava - Witten boundary, i.e. compactified on a line segment. PLUS saying that the Motl paper is unreliable is very naive. The paper concluded the 2nd superstring revolution, and is widely known as the Heterotic form of Matrix string theory. Dimension10 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references: Done. ! Dimension10 (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArXiV is absolutely not a reliable source, though it is helpful to provide an ArXiV link for a paper later published elsewhere. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably are saying this because you don't know what kind of an impact that paper has had on physics.Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that based on the policy in WP:RS and the fact that ArXiV is non-refereed. If someone were to totally rewrite the article based on reliable sources, it would be a "keep." -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paper has been cited an uncountable number of times in peer-reviewed journals. That's what I'm saying.Dimension10 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Hořava–Witten" gets 963 hits in GScholar and 532 hits in GBooks; that search term includes Hořava–Witten string theory as well as the Hořava–Witten domain wall (another unsourced article) and the resulting Hořava–Witten cosmology. All three of these are related concepts and could be discussed in a single article. Along with the citation counts found by Sławomir Biały above, it is clear that this topic is notable. But the article has serious problems--almost all cited sources were originally related to a single author (Motl) resulting in an idiosyncratic view of of this theory. So the article looks to have a non-neutral point of view and be aWP:COATRACK for Motl's Anti-de Sitter space take on the theory. The refs also show the strong Motl bias; Ref 3 has Tom Banks as the first author on the paper, but Motl is listed first in the ref. Thanks goes to Dimension10 for adding the original primary refs, but the usual approach in these papers has not been incorporated into the article prose. Blowing up the article per WP:TNT is a reasonable course if these strong biases cannot be removed. But removing the biases are ultimately a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. I may have a go at it myself. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking(talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up, or merge. Obviously, the work of Witen in devising an 11-dimension string theory is notable, as is the 1st article on the topic, even if none of this has been proven actually how the world is. I'm concerned that this is a coatrack. Can it be merged into somthing else? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be merged into anything because it is hardly associated with its T-dual (Type I) and while it is associated with its S-dual (Type HE), Type HE is generally formulated as a peturbative theory, unlike Horava - Witten. Dimension10 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete. The String theory work of Edward Witten and Petr Hořava (theorist) is certainly extremely notable, and we already have articles about it. However, this article is not about that work (it doesn't cite them at all), but seems to be a WP:COATRACK for unpublished WP:OR by Lubos Motl. However, we really need the physicists to judge (I'm not one), and I've notified the Physics Wikiproject. -- 203.171.197.4 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No adequate sources. ArXiv is not a RS on its own. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Unlike most peer-reviewed journals, putting something on arXiv does not make it into a reliable source. But the paper in question, "Proposals on nonperturbative superstring interactions", has nearly 300 citations on Google scholar, despite its lack of journal publication. To me that indicates that it may be considered reliable. However, the title of the Wikipedia article does not appear in that paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no indication that anyone has done due diligence regarding the topic of the article. There are many more reliable sources on Hořava–Witten theory that can be found in principle (see my posts above). The fact that the present article does not cite those is something that can be fixed by normal editing, not deletion. I don't know enough string theory to be able to comment much on the present state of the article, but the sources I have seen discuss Hořava–Witten theory as the strongly coupled limit of an ${\displaystyle E_{8}\times E_{8))$ heterotic string theory and the low energy limit of M-theory in ${\displaystyle R^{10}\times S^{1}/\mathbb {Z} _{2))$ , and this does not seem to be mentioned in the current article. So there might be WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT issues that need addressing, but again those need to be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: The article does state that the HW string theory is the S-dual of the Type HE and the interval compactification of M-theory.

You're convincing me that this is a case for WP:Blow it up and start over. What I'm hearing is that this article isn't about string theory as Hořava and Witten defined it, but about something quite different. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What do you mean? Please read the Horava - Witten paper. M - theory with a Horava - Witten boundary = The S - dual of Type HE string theory. . .... Dimension10 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without anyone commenting in detail on the substance of the article or the sources, you are very easily convinced. No one here has committed even the most superficial assessment of either the article or available sources. What you should be convinced of is that the subject of this article is indeed notable and therefore the article should be kept. Blow it up and start over would require someone to assess the article a propos of sources in detail. Naturally, since this is AfD, that won't happen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "No one here has committed even the most superficial assessment of either the article or available sources"? I've looked at the article, and to my (non-physicist) eyes it seems to me to be poorly-sourced WP:OR unrelated to what Hořava and Witten actually wrote. Unless we get support for the article from the Physics Wikiproject, which seems unlikely (given the way all the sister articles are being deleted), I'm still calling it a case for WP:TNT. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to your "non - physicist eyes", how would you "know" that it is unrelated to Horava-Witten paper? Please read the Horava - Witten paper. Dimension10 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you the article should be deleted because you lack the technical expertise to assess it? That doesn't seem like a valid deletion argument. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was saying (like the editors below) that the article was a WP:COATRACK for one person's opinion of the Horava - Witten work. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Opinion? Physics is an objective science and all good papers in physics don't have "opinions". Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should cite some good papers, then. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Good papers"? Motl's paper is one of the most impactful papers in String theory. Dimension10 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking some of the citations of the (still, after 16 years, unpublished) paper, I doubt that very much. And since it seems that you cannot find reliable sources, I am strengthening my "delete" !vote. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Motl's paper IS a reliable source. Even standard textbooks like BBS mention it. (2) I have clearly stated other sources too. So instead of repeating the same nonsense again and again, get something better to do, than these attempts to get rid of good articles. . . And unlike what you say it in your "Delete" comment, the article IS about the topic, and now it cites the paper too. Dimension10 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Nonsense. You've not read and understood the article and papers describing the theory, so you're assessment that the article is a coatrack is entirely without foundation, based only on the fact that the article relies heavily on Motl's (highly cited and reliable) paper. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a slightly reshuffled version of a recently deleted one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Townsend string theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason why everyone thinks that it overly cites the same paper is because of a strange error that puts 9 copies of the same references repeatedly. Dimension10 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the referencing is an absolute mess. -- 203.171.196.5 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now. Dimension10 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. : Has anyone noticed that absolutely ALL of the content refering to the so-called "unreliable paper", is supported by other sources too? . Dimension10 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. I have fixed the issues. Now can the result be finalised as "Keep"? . Dimension10 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. 5 people have said "keep" and 2 people have said "delete" (without valid reasons by the way) . The result is over isn't it? It's "keep", right? . . Dimension10 (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd consider a final "keep" outcome pretty much certain now. Improvements in the article (prompted by the discussion here) have contributed to that. Give the closing admins time to do their job. -- 202.124.89.30 (talk) 03:51, 27 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-17 42-3490[edit]

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

Not notable despite the authors assertion in the the lead, there is no need for EVERY B-17 to have an article. At best this aircraft rates a mention in the airlines article if it has one, but NOT a page of it's own. Petebutt (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 17:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable — Lfdder (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article, and certainly nothing notable about this aircraft. Doesn't even mention which airline the aircraft was sold to. Hjay50 (talk) 14:57, 23 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) 19:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderna Therapeutics[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 72.85.228.95, whose rationale is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article lacks notability. Some of the references quoted as Featured articles are ipress releases. 72.85.228.95 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 350 such biotech companies in the Cambridge, MA area. Most of them have made business deals with major pharmaceuticals, as a mean to raise funds. There is nothing notable or unique about Moderna Therapeutics. Although technology claimed to be interesting but there is no proof of concept or clinical candidates. The patents claims could not be verified at the US Patent Office web site. Having Harvard Professors as board members is not a big deal. Almost all the biotechnology companies hire professors from Ivy League universities for Scientific Board, which are as show piece names to display on the company website, but have no real role or important roles in the company operation. I do not find this company profile notable. It is like another biotechnology company among millions of others in the world. Most probably intent is promotion behind creation of this profile. It should be deleted. 72.93.171.77 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The SPA's reasoning is thorough and well founded, I agree. Unfortunately, however insignificant this company might be, the fundamental element of WP:CORP -- and, indeed, of the GNG -- is "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The subject is discussed, in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Boston Business Journal and Boston Magazine, just to name some of the references already in the article. These are highly reliable sources with national reach, any two of which would be sufficient to meet notability requirements. Ravenswing 23:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete:~~ This company is not discussed in New York Times, Boston Globe. In fact those were news based upon press release. It is wrong and misleading to say that company was extensively discussed in Boston Globe, the New York Times, Boston Business Journal and Boston Magazine. News derived from Press Releases are not discussions. Those kind of news are published everyday in the news paper. The company is not notable at all. It should be deleted.72.85.228.95 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ahem. It is not remotely wrong to say that the company was extensively discussed in these sources: the New York Times article is over 600 words, the Boston Globe and Boston Business Journal articles nearly 450, the Boston Magazine article nearly five thousand. Each carries a reporter's byline, not the hallmark of press release articles. Each has quotes from different people, and none are written in the fashion of a press release. All discuss the subject in considerably more detail than the GNG requires. The claims of the anon IPs that this is not the case -- and using some curiously similar language to do so -- either displays ignorance of our requirements, never having read the sources in the first place, or some agenda other than application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm starting to lean towards the latter, especially since the nom's only other Wikipedia activity is an AfD seeking to delete the article for Moderna's CEO, a deletion discussion likewise heavily trafficked by anon IPs. Ravenswing 21:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed this nomination as per WP:AGF, which usually serves me in good stead. But given the comments here and the referencing I'm seeing, perhaps that was an error. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you were just helping out. As far as the merits of the AfD, that's why we have deletion discussions in the first place. I'm not -- yet -- terming this a bad faith nomination, but if this company is as insignificant as these anon IPs claim, how did they possibly find the article in the first place, and how would they know enough to file for deletion? Ravenswing 21:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is in multiple reliable sources.Berlinweiss (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moderna Therapeutics meets notability guidelines being in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, Boston Business Journal, and Businessweek. Publicindividual87 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Publicindividual87 was blocked as a sock-puppet of Morning277[reply]

Comment The New York Times, Boston Business Journal, and BusinessWeek articles are about AstraZeneca, not Moderna in particular, with Moderna mention as one of the small company with which AstraZeneca made a deal.Sh scientist (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Sh scientist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete A very clear case of not yet notable According to the article "y that is researching and developing protein therapies based on novel messenger RNA technology." it does not yet have a developed product, not even one in the first stages of human testing. The NYT article being relied on for notability is essential about about Astrazeneca, not about the company whose patent it bought. We have a standing practice about patents: they are only significant if exploited. How can a company with no product possibly be notable? Its more in the class of garage bands with no recordings.

Comment: I'm surprised there, DGG -- you know better than that. A garage band that has nonetheless secured multi-hundred (or multi THOUSAND) word articles in multiple reliable sources would meet the standards of the GNG no matter how little they'd ever actually produced. You know full well that an article does not have to be solely about the subject, as long as it discusses the subject in "significant detail" -- as the NYT AND the Boston Globe AND the Boston Magazine AND the Boston Business Week articles do. Such notability criteria such as WP:BAND are always subordinate to the GNG. Ravenswing 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Boston Globe, and other news papers articles are about a collaboration deal with AstraZeneca. The articles do not specifically discuss Moderna. Company is not table. Its technology is not proven. Google search will show that several blogs questions AstraZeneca throwing money on a technology which had not been proven. I agree with DGG arguments. The purpose of the articles could be self promotion.Sh scientist (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Sh scientist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Your assertion is just not true. The Boston Globe article, titled "Moderna Theraputics in line for $240m licensing deal," quotes Moderna executives and is focused on the company. The multi-page Boston Magazine article is entirely about Moderna. The New York Times article references Moderna extensively. As far as the stability of the company, the worth of its technology or whether AstraZeneca has made a good deal goes, these elements form no part of Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines, and cannot be considered in this or any other deletion discussion. Frankly, we should be less concerned about whether a well-sourced article constitutes self-promotion, and more concerned at this curious, anonymous campaign to get the article removed. Ravenswing 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ravenswing, you can follow Wikipedia policy. As far as I am concerned, I do not see whole discussion as an anonymous campaign. I had been working in the biotechnology field since 28 years and hold senior positions. Moderna article is deleted or not, I do not care about it. It is one of those garbage companies for professionals like me and others. At some point, you raised the point that how people find the article on Moderna. What surprises me the tone of your comments and writeup, as Admin, to defend and attack others. For your information, there is something called Google, and searches on AstraZeneca are returning Moderna too. Anyway, there are thousands of thousands irrelevant article in Wikipedia, who really cares if one more there!!! An article in Wikipedia does not lift the status of a third rated company to something good. Thanks for the discussions, I am out of it.Sh scientist (talk) 01:11, 16 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, Mdann52 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Painfully obvious keep I stopped after reading the very first non-company ref, which was a multi-page article written specifically about this company with references to ones like it. Meets every criterion for NOTE I've ever seen. The only cogent DEL argument I can find is the anon's comment about patents, but I don't know enough about that to say, and the nom didn't argue that. Should be trivially closed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:56, 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 merge to Dover Corporation. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waukesha Bearings Corporation[edit]

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

Minor manufacturing firm (now division of notable large firm) - neither evidence nor assertion of non-existent notability. Orange Mike | Talk 12:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that the COI editor User:BearingTechnology has continued to edit the page, despite my providing straightforward instructions on the article's Talk page and on BearingTechnology's Talk page on how to disclose, use Talk and ask for feedback. I note that some of his additions are useful, but "gives machines a lower cost of ownership and reduced leakage gap" we could have done without. And such promotionalism makes me lean towards deleting on the basis of WP:NOT, but I believe the article as a whole is adequately neutral and well-sourced to keep, if more sources are found to establish notability. I note that more sources have been added, but I think it still needs a few more sources that cover the company in greater depth and are from more credible sources to meet the bar. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing the acticle with an overview of the services and what they are provided for. The industry is one that is often misunderstood and it is one that can be better clarified in several ways. This is article is intended to provide an informative source and overview of a corporation in the industry, similar to what has been created for other organizations. Many of the articles on magnetic bearings, fluid bearings, etc. all have a direct connection to the Waukesha Bearings Corporation article, therefore it can serve as a resource for Wikipedia users seeking more in depth understanding. I am more than welcome to having others contribute, as I have a plethora of additional sources (from books, journals, websites, etc.). I am disappointed to see such critical feedback on an article that has just started to form. BearingTechnology (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing, can you please provide the books, journals and websites you're referring to? CorporateM (Talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, here are a number of resources listed below that give the company notability and, for those who are unaware of the industry, a more clear understanding of the contribution the products and services give to OEMs (Siemens, GE, Rolls Royce, Toshiba, Westinghouse, NAM-Shell, etc.) that produce important resources (such as oil and gas energy) for areas around the world.

(1) http://books.google.com/books?id=nopKAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Not done I could not find the company mentioned in the book using the search function. CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2) http://www.ebearing.com/news2004/102601.htm Done These are both included in the article already. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3) http://www.ebearing.com/news2001/news301.htm Done These are both included in the article already. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(4) http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/12/28/daily39.html Done Already included CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(5) http://www.mt-online.com/february2010/inproseal-takes-it-one-part-at-a-time Done already included
(6) http://www.jsonline.com/business/110849239.html Done This is a good source and one that I think improves the argument for keeping the article substantially. CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(7) http://ir.fmctechnologies.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=280804 Not done a press release CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(8) http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/10385/comment-the-marine-renewable-engineering-challenge/ Not done Looks like an op-ed? Also not sure if it actually mentions the company. A CTRL F "Find" didn't turn anything up.
(9) http://www.ingesfor.com/BA537/Cases/Case%209_1/case%209_1.pdf Not done I downloaded the PDF and did a CTRL-F "Find" and nothing came up as far as mentioning the technology
(10) http://www.waukbearing.com/en/about-us/engineering-and-technology/ Not done This is just the company website and not a usable source for us
(11) http://www.sipac.gov.cn/english/categoryreport/IndustriesAndEnterprises/201210/t20121026_175900.htm
(12) http://www.waukbearing.com/en/about-us/news/?ID=18
(13) http://www.ebearing.com/news2005/041101.htm
(14) http://www.bearing.com.cn/dev/read_news.php?id=6890&type
(15) http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pearland/news/pearland-finds-higher-economic-fortune/article_3ac70fb5-a36e-5369-b8f0-a66b7e7389d3.html
(16) http://turbolab.tamu.edu/articles/trc_members_list
(17) http://www.generatortechnicalforum.org/html/industry/industry_challenges.htm
(18) http://www.pump-zone.com/topics/bearings/attraction-magnetic-bearings
(19) http://www.marineinsight.com/tech/main-engine/different-types-of-marine-propulsion-systems-used-in-the-shipping-world/
(20) http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-engines-machinery/93979-marine-electrical-power-distribution/
(21) http://cced.ces.uwex.edu/files/2012/08/N._EDGE_Langlade1.pdf
(22) http://www.industrynet.com/listing/219495/waukesha-bearings
(23) http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestpractices/pdf/inpro.pdf
(24) http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/vendor-news/2013/inproseal-bearing-isolator-receives-ip66-rating/
(25) http://offshoregroup.com/advantages-manufacturing-in-guaymas-and-empalme/
(26) http://www.inpro-seal.com/en_US/about-us/company-profile/
(27) http://books.google.com/books?id=b2Qsst8UBEYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
(28) http://www.flowserve.com/portal/site/fls/menuitem.3c9f4e703bfa49d43aa855108101a1ca/?vgnextoid=8b93938ce15d0210VgnVCM10000085101eacRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
(29) http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/vendor-news/2013/inproseal-bearing-isolator-receives-ip66-rating/
(30) http://www.dovercorporation.com/globalnavigation/about-dover/corporate-development Not done — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearingTechnology (talk • contribs) 13:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B.T., you are conflating (possibly innocently) the importance of bearings and bearing technology, with the notability of a single firm. I also notice an unwholesome number of links to corporate websites which may be neither reliable nor impartial. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike- Though I am not purposely conflating the importance, I am simply trying to contribute to the business sector of Wikipedia content. I am having difficulties understanding the difference between what is being created here and what has been created for the countless other businesses. With an understanding of the industry, I know that there are few companies in the industry due to the highly technical processes. John Crane Group is one of the others, which is represented on Wikipedia. With the creation other articles in the industry, it leaves Wikipedia users to understand the history, development and acquisitions associated with the industry. Many of the articles above are not necessarily corporate, but news articles from tubromachinery groups reporting on the advances of the industry and Waukesha Bearings Corporation's relation.BearingTechnology (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a discrepancy between two users User:Orangemike and User:CorporateM. Above, it was recommended that I stop editing the page. However, it was also noted that "Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion." on my talk page. I am willing to collaborate and hope to gain feedback on the discrepancy so I know the best way to handle this moving forward. BearingTechnology (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general our instructions are intended for regular, crowd-sourced, volunteer participants. WP:COI provides guidance specifically for marketing professionals, which varies drastically compared to the instructions provided to the site's editors. Anyways, I'll look through the sources and provide my own vote one way or another after review. CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a bit more now and am interested in learning more as I am able to. Thank you. http://turbolab.tamu.edu/proc/turboproc/T32/t32-05.pdf This technical paper, by a bearing engineer not associated with the company, acknowledges that one of WBC's acquisitions (Glacier Metal Company) is the earliest user of the directed lubrication concept. http://www.magneticbearings.org/?page_id=1132 The International Symposium for Magnetic Bearings hall of fame page awards an engineer within the company that contributed to the development of magnetic bearings. BearingTechnology (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing, do you think you could put together a couple sentences for the Dover page with citations like "In 1977, Dover acquired Waukesha Bearings Corporation,(source) a company that manufactured ___________,(source) for $XXX million.(source) Waukesha Bearings Corporation had also previously acquired a ______ company, ________, for $XXX million in 19XX(source) and a ____ company, ______, for $XXX million in 19XX.(source)" or something similar to that? CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, I added information about acquisitions to Dover's page. I found sources for the information as listed. Is that what you were suggesting? Unfortunately my Internet browser was not allowing me to use the citation template so they include the URL for now.BearingTechnology (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Absent references for notability being added, I suggest merging with Dover Corporation. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't have time to review all 30 sources provided, but from what I've seen most are re-written press releases, don't mention the company, are primary sources or don't cover the company in substantial depth. There are a couple exceptions and I see a couple acquisitions that were notable, but we only have 1-2 paragraphs of material that could be written using proper sources. Since the company was acquired by Dover Corporation in 1977, and we don't have enough sources to discuss its history before then, adding the information to the Dover page seems like the right place for it. This would be our normal approach when we write an article on a Fortune 500 company is to consolidate the history of the small companies it acquires there. The Dover page also gives me the impression that it was written by the company, so perhaps he/she can eventually share what they learn on the right way to participate with the mother ship. I'm happy to do some light coaching and assistance to make any appropriate edits on the Dover page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 24 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 Transwiki to Russian Wikipedia. However, users are reminded that the usual practice is to tag foreign-language articles ((notenglish)) and list them at WP:PNT. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Сады и парки Душанбе (Таджикистан)[edit]

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

Article is not in English. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to ru-wiki. From google translate, it's about the parks and gardens of Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikstan. Let the ru-wiki people figure out if it's notable enough or not for themselves. Ansh666 18:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A note, it doesn't look like this has ever been on ru-wiki; there was no deletion log when I tried to create. Ansh666 18:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - That does seem like a reasonable option. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:04, 25 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eliad Cohen[edit]

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

Eliad Cohen does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Most of the references used in the article are photography editorials in which Cohen was the model or his involvement with several organizations that also do not pass GNG. Several citations (at the time of writing) are just blogs where his photo has been posted, used as a reference to his appearance on a gay magazine cover or the like. Many of the remaining sources are passing mentions of Cohen (this one I removed from the page is an example) or are just interviews with him after his appearance on a single magazine cover, which means WP:BLP1E covers this as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a highly notable artist and personality not only in Israel, but internationally. The references, even after a considerable removal of some important info and references I had provided convey the importance of this artist. He has also appeared in a documentary about gay life in Israel. I am reinstating some very relevant info removed, for the benefit of readers and other colleagues to decide on this matter of keeping this vital article once and for all. Reputable references provide include sources in French, Italian, many Hebrew language sites in addition to a considerable number of English language media and range from Haartez, to Mako, Out magazine, amongst others. werldwayd (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eliad Cohen is not an artist. He is a model. And yet again you added unsourced and false content to the article which per WP:BLP I am required to remove (Cohen never appeared on the cover of Australia's DNA magazine). Arguably, the only thing he is notable for is being attractive, as everything else he has done has been a derivative of his modeling career.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 12 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) 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [16], [17], [18]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Eliad Cohen is a public figure, he's now a prominent symbol of masculine but open gay person. His several activities are giving an important impulse to the visibility of the gay community in Israel and set a significant example of acceptance in the middle east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.113.147 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is valid on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. [redacted]) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Note, the above comment was left by the sockpuppet of a banned editor.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article still somewhat reads as an advert for Gay-ville, which also existed as an article and was deleted by the same author as this one. Many of the references just seem to be based on that one cover photo he did and the international gay community's reaction and subsequent adoration (as the IP proves above) simply because he is attractive in certain circles. While WP:BASIC is fine, WP:NMODEL gives more detailed criteria, none of which he meets, unless being thought of as attractive by the gay community is a "cult following" or his modeling being "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment".—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:32, 22 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bajoo[edit]

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

Article about a cloud computing/hosting company. The references are almost exclusively press-release-driven (notice the dates). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 20:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed many mistakes I made by publishing the (not finished) article. Sorry for the mess. The press references have been removed as they were exclusively in french and one in english has been added. - ElinaCA 09:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 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, TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:43, 11 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) 11:55, 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Draper[edit]

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

Textbook WP:BLP1E - notable for being the youngest golfer to achieve a hole-in-one, and nothing since. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 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) 11:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 10:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladlena Funk[edit]

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

None of the reliable third-party sources, of which there are rather few in the first place, mention the subject at all. Google News shows a few passing mentions in relation to a bizarre abduction to Belarus, but no significant coverage - at best WP:BLP1E applies. Besides the general lack of notability, the article has severe problems with WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ImmortalPanda had told me of the article and said that there were others of the same "quality"; it may be worthwhile to go looking for them. I'll also notify WT:WikiProject Belarus. Huon (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:20, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:35, 11 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) 11:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghuraba al-Sham Front[edit]

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

I did a google search for "ghuraba al-sham front" and there was not a single return outside of wikipedia. The reuters which mentions them uses a differet name so either its an editorial mistake or its a modrate faction of another group. There is another group with the exact same name and my guess is that the titles were confused. Also, the name of the title, and the one in the source are different. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an arab and I can speak Arabic . Go and try جبهة غرباء الشام on Google and u will find out more about the group. I have watched a TV show hosting a member. the other group u mentiond have nothing to do with syrian civle war and it almost no longer exist after the death of it's founder. u can go throw The front facebook page and u will find out that it was founded on 2011 so they aren't the same 3bdulelah (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person that split the article into 2 different articles. As I mention on the talk page here of Ghuraba al-Sham (jihadist group), they are two distinct organizations with different founding dates, different ideologies and different leaders. The first edit that was undone provides proof that they are different groups. The jihadist group is allied with Al Nusra Front, while the other group is in favor of a civil state. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that the jihadist Ghuraba al-Sham was emerging around 2003-2005. [19] The Reuters article mentions that the moderate group was founded 2 years ago ["What we have built in two years disappeared in a single day"]. It is even clearer that they are two distinct groups because they have clearly different founding dates. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reuters is enough. It's a reliable source for a political party. We have normally been rather inclusive here, to avoid the problem of differential coverage of small movements. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh Did you actually read what i said? None of the sources actually mention the term "ghuraba al sham front". Thid group is non-existent. Pass a Method talk 06:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page under the name Ghuraba al-Sham (moderate group) to differentiate it between the jihadist group with the same name. I believe 3bdulelah moved the page to Ghuraba al-Sham Front; that is approximately what the Facebook page is called. A Google Translate translation for part of what it written on the Facebook page comes up with "Front strangers Sham operating in Aleppo." The 2 references mention a group operating in Aleppo; the linked Facebook page mentions it as well. The group does exist; it should just be moved back to Ghuraba al-Sham (moderate group). I tried to do it myself, but an admin has to do it for some reason.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:10, 18 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) 11:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Mentioned here, here, here, here and here as well. Someone should try to figure out if there are indeed two groups called Ghuraba al-Sham, but at least one is somewhat notable. Alarabiya talks of "Ghuraba al-Sham comprising mainly Turks and fighters from former Soviet bloc countries". Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanogel (insulation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a product which has no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is also written distinctly like an advertisement, and I might have considered speedy deletion had it not been for the fact that there has been a previous AfD discussion, three years ago, which closed as having no consensus because of a lack of participation. The closure then stated that there was "leave to speedy renominate". (Although it is not a reason for deletion, I will also mention that the article was created by an editor almost every one of whose edits have been promotion of products or companies.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:31, 11 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) 11:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced and fails WP:GNG: I can't find anything except press releases. That this has been sitting around unsourced since 2006 is kind of stunning. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 25 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Plasmius[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No third-party sources, full of OR and lack of any out-of-universe notability. The previous AfD's keep arguments were mostly just "he's a main villain in a popular show," but there's no to establish notability with. Beerest355 Talk 18:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the issue really whether to maintain an article on this subject or whether to redirect it to the parent subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:13, 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:29, 11 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) 11:35, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice Squad[edit]

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

3 sources, two of which are album notes Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 4 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group have released three albums, one on Shanachie Records and two on Tara Music. They have also performed on national BBC Radio ([20]). Coverage includes Allmusic ([21], [22], [23]), and Gerry Cullen has also received coverage as a solo artist ([24]). --Michig (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only heard of Shanachie in relation to Reggae, not sure it's even the same one but even if it is that's not quite "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" as specified in WP:BAND. The Tara one certainly doesn't count as even the article admits: "In recent years many the releases on the Tara Music label are self-produced artist recordings whereby Tara Music act as distributor". So they're essentially self-released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the same Shanachie Records, which if we're going to believe every unsourced claim in Wikipedia articles is "one of the largest independent record labels in the world". Having albums distributed by a 'major' label is a long way away from 'self-releasing' albums. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 12 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) 11:33, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Medical International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, promotional article the one valid ref provided is [[25]] and it talks about an investment the other sources are from the business itself or prwire. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG specifically Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Search came up dry, just a lot of company-generated listings, no news coverage (except as noted by nom). -- Scray (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on the Google News link at the header of this discussion for independent, reliable sources; they exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're right - notable as you point out - thanks for setting me straight. -- Scray (talk) 03:57, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Remote Medical International and edited the site because the article has been inaccurate (and unmaintained) for several years. We are a completely different company than we were when the article was originally written, and we're just trying to make it accurate. The intent is for accuracy and education, not for self-promotion. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. I removed all citations that link back to our website or blog and have relied completely on secondary references. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. 50.132.67.12 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Shaehealey[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH for a standalone Wikipedia article:

Global link to medics a call away. The Columbus Dispatch.
Remote Medical International provides emergency services to travelers in distant locations. Puget Sound Business Journal.
Fort Lewis medics train for Afghanistan mountains. The Seattle Times.
Remote Medical International: to your (global) health. Seattle Business.

Also, and importantly, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than whether or not they're actually present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 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 keep. Wrong forum. Liberty to list at WP:CP if desired. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes (novel)[edit]

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

This article appears to have been translated from this page at inhaltsangabe.de, a source that does not license its content under a free license. Unfortunately it may thus be a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 22:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my searches I've found three scholarly book sources and one peer reviewed journal entry on the novel. I can't do too much with the sources since I can barely make out the words in it. My German is fairly non-existent in general and the advanced wording in these sources are a bit beyond me. I can get the general gist of it though, and I can see where they'd be usable as reliable sourcing. This is just sort of the tip of the iceberg from what I can see, as it looks like it's considered to be a fairly big book in Germany and things such as this suggest that it's used as far as schooling/education goes. I'll add more as I find it, but offhand the sources would probably do better under the hand of a fluent German speaker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added quite a bit more, but I think I'll stop with this since I've established notability but cannot really read enough to really be able to do justice with the sources. I'll drop a note on the German WP for some help with the sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:15, 11 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) 11:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AFD is not the forum for copyright problems. No deletion arguments based on notability have been made. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:23, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Convention Management Association[edit]

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

No evidence provided to indicate that this group meets WP:CORP. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 18:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please click on this link http://www.pcma.org/attend-learn/industry-calendar#.UdSzVUnD-M8 and it will give you more details about their meetings. Just because they are a small, niche organization, does not warrant their deletion. Chris (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't show coverage in third party sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find coverage that gets it past WP:GNG. Not even the recent WSJ mention really tells us anything about the company.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the association is being mentioned in the Wall Street Journal should be cause for pause, should it not? That counts as 1 towards GNG, in my opinion. This trade association has been around for more than half a century, very strong likelihood not only that sources exist, but that WP should have a page about the group. For the record, HERE'S their official history, which is a self-source for purposes of this notability challenge but which may be mined if anyone wants to expand the piece in a verifiable way (a see a really spammy incarnation in the edit history, that's not what I mean, of course). THIS BIT about the partnership of Sonic Foundry and the PCMA from Madison Wisconsin Living would seem to count towards GNG as a second source. Not sure if Roy C Wood and Bob Brotherton (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Hospitality Management has anything counting towards GNG, but if I were buffing up the page I would run that into further reading. THIS PIECE from Mexico Today does cover the PCMA at some length. They also publish a magazine, which would be gold to a serious historian doing work on the history of the group. Anyway, yeah, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 4 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 02:05, 11 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) 11:28, 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 delete all except List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess, which was not tagged for deletion and therefore its readers did not have a fair chance to debate the matter. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess[edit]

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

Quoting myself: "Non-notable cruft. There is no reason to catalog every single loss that occurred during his career, only the notable ones, which probably are already mentioned at his own article." Also I'm going to bundle

Beerest355 Talk 00:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not made my mind up on Alekhine and Lasker, but definite Keep on the Capablanca article since there is a book devoted to collecting his losses Capablancas samtliga förlustpartier [26], it is written in Swedish and rather old, but it is direct non-trivial coverage on the subject matter, and therefore it passes WP:GNG. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG usually requires multiple reliable sources. I just want to make this point because this is the third "people who beat X in chess" AfD in which a single book on the subject is being presented as definitive evidence of notability. Notability standards are just as high for lists as for regular articles. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capablanca's remarkably short list of losses has been covered in multiple sources. My mentioning that a whole book has been written about it is basically to underscore that. But a search for "Capablanca loss" at Google Books will reveal other places where the difficulty in beating Capablanca is covered, e.g. Twelve Great Chess Players and Their Best Games [27]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is already an article where the difficulty in beating Capablanca is covered: José Raúl Capablanca Borock (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Capablanca per nom; neutral on Capablanca. I'm not convinced that there are multiple reliable sources discussing all of these losses as a general set, though I can't see the above link so I can't be sure. Ansh666 20:19, 15 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) 11:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ansh666 - While the others are definitely not notable enough, Capablanca does have a few sources to it, although I'm not sure if the amount that there is really helps. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All If a person is notable as a chess player it almost goes without saying that he/she is hard to beat. If only a few other players have done it by all means list them within the article on the person. A separate list seems to be an artifical construct, that is WP:Original research. The fact that in one case a clever author came up with the idea first and made it into a book does not change that. Borock (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence of the policy that you cited says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In this case the "no reliable, published sources exist" criterion is patently not true. When the content of the article can be easily sourced to a book covering the subject directly, it is no longer original research (disallowed) but simply research (allowed and encouraged). Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disagreeing with the facts presented in these articles. It's the form that is original. It's kind of like the photo books "24 hours in..." We would not have an article "Events in such and such a place on such and such a date." Borock (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Capablanca, seeing as only that article seems to pass GNG. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently filled with blue links to be worthwhile, however, this is poorly organised. Merge to Paul_Morphy#Playing_style and spin out Paul's chess games specific stuff to a separate article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but lots of blue links isn't enough to keep. Check these recent AfDs for similar articles that recently closed as delete. Beerest355 Talk 23:21, 23 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apitron pdf rasterizer[edit]

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

Delete non notable software fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Speedy delete,~~ as an unambiguous copyright infringement, and failing that delete as lacking any evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. This article has now been created three times by a single purpose editor who is clearly here to promote this product. The first version of the article was a verbatim copy of http://apitron.com/Product/pdf-rasterizer, and both unambiguous copyright infringement and unambiguous promotion. Subsequent versions have been reworded to make them not so blatantly promotional, and also evidently to try to address the copyright issue. However, it still contains substantial text copied word for word from the page I have cited, and the rest of it is a sufficiently close paraphrase to make it perfectly clear that it is copied from there too. I have also spent some time searching, and found no evidence whatever of notability. The product appears to have been released in June 2013, and if it ever will achieve notability, it hasn't yet. I could speedily delete it, but, having already done so once, I shall instead nominate it for speedy deletion to see if another administrator agrees with me. If so, I think it will be time to consider salting the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything ambigously promotional in it and as such software is not eligible for a7 that is the only reason I didn't do what you're doing. I think it's the right course to speedy it I just hate getting those freaking dumb I didn't speedy delete because I am policy wanking 8) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is not promotional, and it was probably a mistake on my part to include promotion in my deletion rationale when I deleted the last version. However, I still think that both that version and the present one are copyright infringements. Ultimately, though, both promotion and copyright are minor issues, as they can easily be put right, whereas no amount of rewriting the article will turn this non-notable product into a notable one. For that reason, I have changed my mind, and I am dropping the speedy deletion nomination, so that we can see whether there is consensus that this article should be deleted for lack of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product. I nominated an earlier version for promotional reasons, and yes, there most certainly was a promotional tone explaining how useful and helpful the product was for "you." So, it most certainly sounded like a sales pitch more than anything encyclopedic. I cannot find any reviews of this product, awards, or otherwise that would support notability for an individual product nor general coverage that would fulfill the general notability guideline. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no significant RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:12, 22 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegheny County Medical Examiner[edit]

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

Delete, we do not need a list of Medical Examiners of a county. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists and Medical examiner offices are not inherently notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator I think this tag was extremely premature. This isn't Timbuktu Pennsyltucky its the office that Cyril Wecht headed for 20 years, as well as the longtime ME for Ft. Lauderdale (Joshua Perper) having almost 14 years here as ME. I forgive Hell in a Bucket for tagging it but it was extremely premature. Research before wordsmithing, the article only took a few minutes after the references.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same notability rules apply no matter where the place in question is situated. And just as an FYI, I have no idea who any of the people who headed this place are, and I doubt many other people do either. Perhaps the closest guidelines available are Wikipedia:Hospitals#Guidelines which in turn refers us to Wikipedia:ORG. See particularly no inherited notability (i.e. the notability of famous people associated with the place does not "count" as notability, it needs to be notable on its own) and we need at least one of the sources to be outside the immediate area in question. [28] is this source meeting that requirement, I don't know I'm not from there. Lesion (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene. This is the ME's office for Pittsburgh, made famous by notable cases and notable former ME's. For a similar case, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office. The similarities in each case is that they appear to be minor offices, but in fact are notable once you look at them in context. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, I point out no inherited notability: "... is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. " I'm not a deletionist, but I would like to follow policy that says to keep the article instead of keeping it for reasons that diverge from policy. Lesion (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: earlier Keep Lesion, I believe the point some editors are attempting to make is that there are still pillars above policies on Wikipedia, primarily WP:COMMONSENSE. Thou your statement is correct, valid and relevant it could also be easily used to promote the deletion of about 90% of wikipedia. Being fair no editor since the labeling has come out for deletion but I do wonder how many have actually clicked the voluminous wikilinks to Drs. Wecht and Perper (which doesn't transfer relevance but who's articles would be pretty vacant if not for the Allegheny County ME office & their involvement with it). Perhaps my initial shocked reaction that a deletion proposal would be raised in which I passively alluded to notability was in error for a discussion of Wikipolicies, however more would be familiar with the ME's of the office than familiar with specific wikipolicies. Given that Jay Leno makes a living off showing how many American's can't recognize a pic of the Vice President maybe that doesn't mean much at all, so back to WP:COMMONSENSE a pillar above policies. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the policy seems to contradict the reasons to keep given so far. A good source which gave significant coverage to the office generally, not mentioning it in passing when discussing individuals or events connected with it, would be ideal, and also at least one source from outside the immediate region of the office, I interpret this in this case to mean from outside the city. Lesion (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Lesion, and working on that. Possibly a retag about "citations" rather than "deletion" is in order?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then Keep, assuming policy for notability sources can be shown to be met, at some point. If you said several sources were easy to find it is probably just a sourcing issue rather than a true notability issue. I wouldn't be inclined to suggest a specific time limit rather than a "find some more sources or it gets deleted" attitude, so a citations tag could be argued to be more appropriate, for you or another editor to improve the article in the future. Not sure if AfD's can be removed once they have started ... looks like it's going to be a keep anyway. There are a few votes for keep, often all that is needed since not many people comment on these. Lesion (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable political office in a major American city. Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, as the office has generated significant coverage in independent RS.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article - which could either be the agency which hosts the holder of this position or the position itself - does not satisfy WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in media. The sources being cited either focus on an individual who has gotten the position - and could have a Wikipedia article about themselves - or the opinions that the holder of this office has when talking about something other than this office. The sources being cited are not actually about this office - they just mention this office in reporting something else. I would like to see more elected positions have articles on Wikipedia but for that to happen more elected positions need other media coverage, and this one does not have that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bluerasberry, thou the logic sounds good the conclusion isn't real, ala Di-mon hoax. The same logic could be used to delete Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York & Los Angeles County Coroner's Office among dozens of other "offices" that include far fewer but similar "sources being cited are not actually about this office - they just mention this office in reporting something else" . Not only is the articles' GNG (thru WP:RS) met when compared to those more established articles, the only remaining way your logic can fit is that somehow LA & NY GNG is worth more than a Pittsburgh's (with WP:RS inverted on such things as Kennedy & Mad Butcher world news events etc.) I'd agree there, but that's not about encyclopedias or RS (which actually count LA as 0 & NY as 1 for 4 & 6 years respectively).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:08, 26 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. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of broadcasting live video streaming media networks[edit]

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

delete, does not appear to be needed as the majority of these providers do not even have their own page yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

save, edited to show the majority of providers do even have their own page. --User9733 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have multiple articles on Internet television and streaming services. We don't need a duplicate. Woodroar (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic at all Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 23 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 deletion G11. Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AccountSight[edit]

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

Delete. appears to be non notable software and thus far taking a promotional tone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would say Speedy delete as an A7~~. Seems like A7 doesn't apply here. So Delete --Glaisher [talk] 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. Peacock (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability for this new software. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Ahmadi[edit]

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

A non-notable human rights activist who fails WP:GNG. Persian sources provided in the article are mostly articles written by the subject not about him, with the exception of a short news article about his sentence. Other sources mention him in passing and among others. Farhikht (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons noted above Kabirat (talk) 12:06, 14 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Taking part in demonstrations or processions, whatever one's motive is, does not make one notable per WP:GNG even if one is unlucky to be arrested or beaten up. Journalists, too, sometimes have to go through this ordeal. The Cairo Tahrir square demonstrations are a good example. His blogsite, mentioned in the article, is just another blogsite. Amnesty International lists a lot of such people. It is part of its remit but it does not speak for the person's/activist's notability per se. And do we really need to be told what his height or weight is! It seems Wikipedia is being treated like just another social media site here.--Zananiri (talk) 10:42, 25 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. Wizardman 16:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deal or No Deal Special shows[edit]

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

Overly-detailed list of episodes for a game show. One source is dead link; two other sources appear to be personal blogs/fansites not affiliated with the production of the TV program.

Episode descriptions with narrative description read like fancruft and contain WP:WEASEL and WP:EDITORIAL info. This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks different than a straight episode list, as these were apparently different versions of the show, as the descriptions for each appears to indicate. So I think this might be a candidate for cleanup, to prune the tables of results for each episode, rather than outright deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are normal episodes which aired "theme weeks" or "theme episodes" with variations to the standard rules. These are not entirely separate series or runs of Deal or No Deal. AldezD (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, "different versions." If the structure or presentation of the show itself changed, that's worth noting as a history of the over-all show, and that's a very different thing than episode-by-episode results of the same exact contest. So I'd be interested to see what we're left with after this has been trimmed and condensed of everything else. It might then be small enough to merge somewhere, might not. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these aren't "different versions". This is the same Deal or No Deal show. These descriptions detail episodes similar to when Wheel of Fortune features three teams of two players each rather than three individual contestants, or a special week of episodes of The Price Is Right in which Plinko offered a growing jackpot each day. It's still the same show, but happened to feature a one-off contest or special week of episodes. The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) and The New Price Is Right (1994 game show) are "different versions"; List of Deal or No Deal Special shows is merely a list of special "themed" or "contest" episodes of the program Deal or No Deal (Australian game show), and special episodes of a television show do not meet WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm the one who created this page (I really don't remember doing that), probably solely to get all this info off the main Deal or No Deal article page. I can tell you right now I have no opinion on what is done with it :) Bobliveson (talk) 15:08, 11 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main article anything that is significantly notable and redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive detail, and I really can't see that any of the content in the tables is suitable for merging. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldomly notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except for maybe fansites. Top-prize winners may sometimes get media coverage and merit mention in the main article, but I cannot see that this is the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 30 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arti Dhand[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Neelix (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has written a bit and answered a reporter's question but I don't think he's written enough or received enough substantial coverage in reliable indpendent sources to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has remained an orphan for a very long time - over three years now - but it appears, as an associate professor, she had already accomplished far, far more than, say, this associate professor in another part of the world: Shanta Rani Sharma. It seems whoever created this article just never got round to entering details in the 'personal life and education' and 'references' sections which were there originally. However, Amazon does list her book which was, as the artcle says, a 'manuscript under review' when the article was created viz. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0791471403/ref=rdr_ext_tmb - and she had written other stuff at the time as well. Perhaps she has added to that list. Tricky one! I have not done a Google search, so I am withholding my !Vote--Zananiri (talk) 21:01, 17 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- wide coverage of her book (410 copies in World Cat; reviews in three peer-reviewed journals) plus the important university w/ tenure puts her strongly and highly above the bar. Remember the study of religion is not a highly cited field with many electronic sources. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to WorldCat at the moment. Would you be willing to provide citations for the three reviews? Neelix (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! They are History of Religions, v49 n4 (May 2010): 421-423, Journal of Asian Studies, v68 n4 (Nov., 2009): 1333-1335, International Journal of Hindu Studies, v12 n3 (Dec., 2008): 331-332. Even if one hasn't heard of the particular journals (as someone not in Asian studies or religious studies might not), note that the first two are at volumes 49 and 68 respectively, suggesting long-established journals (as does their presence in JSTOR). A search through AfDs over the past year has seen book holding counts become more and more important for evaluating scholars in the humanities and social sciences' notability and 410 is significantly over the typical bar (100 has appeared to be borderline and 250 and above has generally gone with a definite keep). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I agree with Michael Scott Cuthbert. She certainly seems to have done a lot of work in her field: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/43749125/arti-dhand. I am looking into this and may add more information later. I also think that User:Candleabracadabra, who has opted for deletion, might have looked at the following site when looking for sources, as he refers to her as 'he' and the site, citing an interview, also refers to a male professor by the name of Arti Dhand. I would be sceptical, too, after reading that, as I am not familiar with a male professor called Arti Dhand and I could make little sense of it: http://www.fwbo-files.com/the-name.htm - --Zananiri (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Michael Scott Cuthbert. As I noted during contesting prod subject is surely a notable scholar in Canada in her subject. The Legend of Zorro 12:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following my previous comments, I have had a look at quite a few Google links relating to the subject and have added some information about her in the article. I think she easily passes both WP:ACAD and WP:PROF and notabilty per WP:GNG is not an issue.--Zananiri (talk) 16:21, 24 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 not-delete, in that AFD ultimately has just two possible outcomes, and this definitely isn't a delete. The question of whether to merge, redirect, or perform other editorial actions can be taken further either on the article talk page or directly under WP:BOLD. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Genocide[edit]

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

The article lacks specific focus. The term 'White Genocide' is really only mentioned once in the introduction, while the rest of the text includes a brief recount of this article followed by random census data of Armenians and their command of the Armenian language, with no reference to the term 'White Genocide' or its definition whatsoever. In fact, only one of the 19 sources addresses the term. A Google Books search provides various and often contradictory definitions for 'White Genocide', so the point of this article is quite unclear. Parishan (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Armenian Genocide This was poorly written by some folks that want to POV push, but yes, this is an actual topic of study.[29][30][31][32] These sources seem to agree that the genocide consists of Armenian assimilation into Europe and the Americas. I think merging this content into Armenian Genocide would be better. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new sources and have rewrote a little and completely removed the problematic section. --Երևանցի ^talk 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is merged, I request that the redirect be protected in order to prevent white supremacists from writing an article about white assimilation. Such claims have been repeatedly inserted into the article. Andrew³²⁷ 12:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yerevanci's edits have brought focus and removed that unnecessary census filler from a legitimate subject. If the article is merged, I second Andrew's request to protect the redirect. Blackguard 21:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect -- What is described is not a genocide, according to any normal definition: the word measn the killing of a people, usually mass murder on account of their ethnicity. It is a case of what typically happens to refugees, who successfully settle in safe countries. In the case of US, this is a typical case of the melting pot nature of the country. A merge leaves a redirect. This will certainly need to be edit-protected against those pushing a white supremicisit POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Armenian Genocide or (going out on a limb here) Armenian diaspora, as the article mentions more than just the Armenian Genocide. There is still not enough information to justify its keeping, especially as "adding sources" included having some sentences with up to seven references at the end. One reference at the end of a sentence? Absolutely! Two? If you need to justify a point, sure! Three? Depends on the case! Seven? Never necessary. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:57, 25 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince amine shail[edit]

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

Unable to determine notability under WP:MUSICBIO. All the material I found is self-published or non-significant. First Google hits on both the name and the stage name are from Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Yintan 11:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 22 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 prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M-SIB[edit]

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

Non-notable director. Has directed a couple of "web films", and has had one television film aired. Citations are to

a news piece in which the subject (M-SIB) reached out to the press to publicize his search for funds for a new project
an article about a project listed in the film, but which does not mention M-SIB
A dead link at Gulf Times, where a search for the term "M-SIB" turns up nothing
A blog entry at dohascope.com promoting his next web film which, not surprisingly, will be aired exclusively on dohascope.com

No indications that this director has any significant independent coverage. The connection between the one significant work this director has created (a film called Play) and the author's username (Playinfo) cannot be overlooked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 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) 01:34, 10 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence such as critical discussions that could indicate attained notability as a film maker. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Revenge of the Headless Horseman[edit]

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

An unsourced article about a non-notable attraction. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Immediately per nom. I have nothing else to say. ~~JHUbal27 03:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. I think I might have done the prod on the previous article? For some reason I have it watchlisted.... Sailsbystars (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was prod because I had it watchlisted too when this new article was created.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 10:29, 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. As has been pointed out, seems fairly clear that it fails the criteria laid out at WP:EVENT. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bupati Cup riots[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable riots. Likely to fade in a few weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even have a Bupati Cup article here, and the article submission was on its way to being turned down for In the News. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few sources from the 15th, but there is no evidence of lasting coverage and thus fails WP:EVENT. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the region was clarified, rather than just the location - the info could possibly go into another article - there are other similar evenrts that dont deserve an article alone - but are sufficiently worth placing in a larger scoped article... sats 07:51, 22 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) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleem Shah (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This is basically a vanity piece. The man is most notable, our article claims, for CALNET, but that outfit doesn't have an article and there are no sources provided to prove that he's most notable for CALNET. The horsies could do it, but there's only one reliable source discussing it, and that article is a very friendly puffy piece that we shouldn't call journalism. This, from the thoroughbred club, is not a reliable secondary publication. As for puff, note the man's patriotism and how he runs his debt-free company. Google News provides a few more mentions of the man and his horses, but nothing rising to the level of in-depth discussion that would make him notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per issues raised in the nomination.I am One of Many (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G5). The only significant contributors to this "article" have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Morning277. MER-C 02:08, 24 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 James Kochalka. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impy & Wormer[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this comic strip. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Kochalka. The comic has no individual notability, but since we have an article for its creator it would be a reasonable enough redirect to there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to James Kochalka, as the only hit I'm getting on Bing News is an interview with Kochalka saying that he made two short cartoons with the characters based on the comics in Nick Mag. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:30, 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. I am prepared to userfy this (like almost every other article I delete) if requested. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40 (film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails the notability guideline at WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Did you notice any reference at all? -- Taku (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The key word is significant. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is not independent of the subject and the second reference is an unreliable Wordpress blog. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three new references were added which are a press release, another blog, and another primary source. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The problem with the sources given is that none of them can really be used as a RS to show notability. They're all either blogs that wouldn't qualify as a reliable source, sources that aren't independent of the subject, or sites that just wouldn't pass muster as far as RS in general goes. At this point in the here and now, there isn't enough coverage for this to pass notability guidelines. However I don't particularly see any reason why this can't be userfied and worked on until reliable sources appear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy Allow back to article space if and when this film receives commentary and analysis in Wikipedia-accepted reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have coverage from reliable sources; blogs and agenda rags can cover it as much as they like but that's not how notability works here. I don't see the point in userfying; the film's been out long enough that it's got the coverage that it's going to get, and it is not customary to keep something in user space that has no potential of making it to article space. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, while this is a topic of interest only to pro-lifers, I agree it has not yet received coverage from reliable sources (unless we have any generally accepted set of pro-life news blogs that can be used). Userfication of this 2013 film allows its author to look for and include sources when they come forward. If this were a 2007 film that never received coverage, I would happily agree with your point. But documentaries rarely get the same level of coverage as do fictional narratives, and allowing someone to work on improving this OUT of mainspace, and allowing a return after notability is established is exactly what userspace is for. It is hubris to WP:CBALL declare that a new documentary film could never be notable or to imply that it has to already be notable in order for it to be worked on out of mainspace. If it were notable, we'd have no argument and no AFD. And in my own not deciding it as simply a storage place to "keep" unworthy articles, I think it serves the entire intent of building an encyclopedia to allow imperfect articles to be worked on OUT of article space. We do not expect nor demand immediate perfection, do we? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 23 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) 16:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Sprayberry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously deleted after an AfD, before his role in Man of Steel (film). Notwithstanding his role in that movie, I still do not believe he meets WP:NACTOR. His IMDb filmography can be found at: [33]. Singularity42 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having a role in a major motion picture should be enough. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to playing young Clark Kent, a truly iconic role in a major pmotion picture, he has had appearances on Glee and iCarly. Here is significant coverage in the Houston Chronicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NintendoFan and Cullen328. Obviously he has had a role in a major motion picture. But NintendoFan, you comment "having a role in a major motion picture should be enough." But WP:NACTOR requires multiple major roles. He's not there yet, and the guideline is there so we that have an objective line. Another major role, and he will meet the guideline, but not yet. Singularity42 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singularity42, please check. The guideline doesn't require "major" roles. Instead, it talks about "significant" roles. I consider the Glee role to be significant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My keep is sort of a borderline "weak" type keep, but it's still a keep. If all Sprayberry was known for was his Superman role, I'd recommend redirecting this to the article for that film and be done with it. However at the same time I've found where he's received notice for a few of his other roles such as Bedrooms. It's a little hard finding sources at times, as some of the ones that specifically mention him by his full name (as opposed to just the last name or character name) tend to fall along the lines of this source that look potentially usable but still sort of look a little suspicious. In any case, there's just enough notability here to where I think Sprayberry just manages to scrape by on notability standards for something other than his Superman role. If I wasn't able to find the two other reviews I'd be a little more dubious, but they do exist and are just enough for right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tokyogirl79, and definitely clean up and expand. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cullen328. Gamaliel (talk) 18:20, 22 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 deletion per CSD:G12. Unambiguous copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Engel[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:BIO because although this person has significant achievements, as well as claims to be reported in news sources, there are not enough reliable sources to verify it. PubLaw doesn't even exist and there are numerous references to Google Books. ~~JHUbal27 00:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If PubLaw doesn't exist, you'd wonder if the rest of the information is made up. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PubLaw was a mistake in the citations added by a novice Wikipedia editor (me). The citations were not meant to mislead and the Work=PubLaw refrences in code have since removed once brought to my attention. Working hard to improve this article, including references and appreciate the Communities' advice and support. Awolfyavis (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is worth noting here that the magazine cited from the american bar association is not their scholarly journal but their trade publication. The articles all read like press releases. As there is nothing backing up the claims of being written about in the various magazines, I have removed that from the article. It always makes me suspicious when claims like that are made, as the author has demonstrated that he knows how to reference, why wouldn't he have referenced that? Something about the "superlawyer" website just seems fishy...maybe it is just me, but all the self-hype seems not fitting for a site that claims to be neutral. In short, he is a licensed attorney who has written a book. Neither are enough to reach WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flagged for copyvio and clearly promotional. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 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.