< 26 July	28 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Jeffrey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

G4 speedy declined without comment by someone other than the article creator - last AFD was closed as Delete. If there is merit to keep this after three AFDs then fine, but there should be a discussion as to whether the subject meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The speedy was removed because he is currently playing in an MLS match. I just saw it before the match and created the article. Source: [1]. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ArsenalFan700. – Michael (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article shouldn't even be nominated for deletion, since this is professional player who already played in a fully professional league.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now added a source on the page itself now. Also I will take blame for this as I should have just added the source when I created the page just to show he was in the line-up. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now passes WP:NFOOTY.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the above, I'd advise the nominator to re-consider this nomination. Giant Snowman 10:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem withdrawing the nomination at this point, after 4 AFDs I think there is finally merit for inclusion. If anyone wants to close, I'm all for it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was deleted because it failed WP:GNG about six months ago. I can't see how playing 79 minutes of a match makes any change to that, and since the subject still fails GNG the article should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But... that would require me to actually put effort into the article so it passes GNG. I mean, I can do it, but do I want to? Hm... --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how playing in a fully professional league doesn't "make any change to that", then you need to re-read the appropriate notability standards. Here's a ((minnow)) to plip you in their direction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sigh, I was just about to close this as "nomination withdrawn" but I can't when there are valid 'delete' !votes...however, this player has made his professional debut and passes WP:NFOOTBALL, the clock for GNG should therefore start now. Giant Snowman 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully pro league namely the MLS. Finnegas (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close - meets the notability standards as he has played in a fully professional match. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of world championships. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Cups[edit]

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

This list seems unnecessary when List of world championships already exists and provides complete insight on these international tournaments. There are also no sources or external links. This may qualify for WP:SYNTH. MicroX (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World Championships are done generally on a annual basis in non-Olympic years or in non-Olympic years. World Cups can either be annual like seasonal events (like Formula 1 or NASCAR) or in events like FIFA;s World Cups. There is a difference between world cup and world championships. Chris (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of world championships; the distinction is only of a name. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously. I see no evidence of the distinction claimed by Chris. Whether such a global competition in any particular sport is called a world championship or a world cup or something else is more a case of historical accident than any design based on the meanings of the terms, and encyclopedia articles are about concepts, not the names of those concepts. I don't see any reason to claim that this falls foul of WP:SYNTH as no conclusion is being drawn by this article, novel or otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of world championships. This list includes some World Championships and 'List of world championships' includes some World Cups! We actually have several articles around this subject and such a merge would usefully start the rationalization process. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:26, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden English Football Club[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, and the assertion of notability is not verifiable. The article is so poorly written as to preclude accuracy because it conflicts with itself. As an example, it was either started by Englishmen, or by British and US athletes. The lede indicates that the main source for information is "lost" (which causes me to wonder if this is real), and seems to be a POINT issue for the article creator. MSJapan (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The de.wikipedia article has none of these peculiarities, and look: an article about it in Die Welt, published 2006. There's also a picture. I will dig further. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered by Die Welt amongst others, appears to meet GNG. Nees improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as first of its kind and sufficient sourcing for something happening 140 years ago. Agathoclea (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and although it appeared to be a case for WP:TNT, User: Ben Ben has made a good start. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks better, but the citations are still very thin; there's only one that meets RS (Die Welt). The Dresdner FC one is SPS and maybe not independent, and Blogspot is certainly not RS. I'm especially concerned notability-wise that this club got less than a page in an entire book on the history of football in Germany. I'm also concerned that perhaps the article creator wrote the book due to the SPA nature of the account and the Amazon.de link, but that's wholly speculative. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further - I also went to Commons because the licenses on the article creator's photos are grossly suspect, and it appears that whoever User:Wikipediohacker is, he is a sock of an indef-banned user. As they seem to know more about it on Commons, I've asked for someone to communicate to enwiki about it. MSJapan (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same observations and added him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. The article needs a complete rewrite; as I say, I'm grateful for the start that's been made. I hope to do some serious helping so that those who can't read German can make a better determination. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Dresden English Football Club was the first Association football club outside Britain. Clearly notable. This really needs to be disproven (or shown to be doubtful) before going for deletion. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not tear one down. JASpencer (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. The article was a mess when MSJapan brought it to AfD, junk based on hearsay. After Yngvadottirs excellent rework it could go for DYK now. Thanks to both. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anyone who really thinks that this will be deleted. As MSJapan never withdraws his own nominations, can we get an Admin to close this down early under WP:SNOW ?

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 Halcyon (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon Days (Ellie Goulding album)[edit]

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

This article on a reissued version of Halcyon (album) will not be out for another month, having been split off from said article a few days ago. Out of all of the references in the article, this is the only one in a reliable source that even mentions "Halcyon Days" (other than a posting on the artist's official website). Everything else is either about Halcyon, the new song "Burn", or are iTunes listings for the album.

I attempted to merge with the original article 3 times but I've been reverted, once by an IP, again by a new editor whose only edits have been to this page, and a third time by Status who claims he has only reverted me because my merge (rather my revert of the splitting off) was contested. I've already successfully reintegrated the content of the split off article into the original. This reissue has nowhere near the coverage of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (a recently main page featured article) or Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection which for some reason also has its own individual page (it looks like a good merge candidate too).

This article is bloated for just being an introduction, a paragraph about its original version, something about the new single, and a tracklist, and is best served as part of the original album article. —Ryulong (琉竜) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halcyon (album) and protect from being edited until September 2, 2013. The date is specific, a week after the album's release, as that is when we will know information about its charting. (As the creator of) Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded originally only became possible because it charted separately apart from the main album. Of course, articles are more than charting positions, but that's a good start. This article is WP:TOOSOON. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it sounds like the best solution for now. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, redirecting sounds like the best solution for now. I apologize for having done a few of those reverts. I did not mean to personally attack anyone. It is just that the situation was not made very clear at the time as to why the efforts of a few other editors were completely erased, who, I am sure, aimed for the same goals of perfection and accuracy. I assure you that my only goal is accuracy, and I have edited other Wikipedia pages besides these Halcyon ones, as well as other pages on other Wikis (which of course have other rules and regulations, but the point being that I am not trying to provide false information or ruin pages). It is not polite to blame other editors who ultimately share the same goal and wish to see the pages to be perfect with accurate information. Blue490246 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per everything said up until this point. It's just a reissue of a prior album. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: - Per what has been said above until more information, and such charting details have been released. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:37, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange technology[edit]

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

Masses of refs but which ones establish the notability of this technology? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be another case of a professor (plus students) trying to promote a very narrow research area, maybe to get tenure? W Nowicki (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a notable concept, at least not yet. Google Scholar hits were all from that one professor and cited minimally. The article itself, and its references, kept crashing my internet connection so I can't really evaluate them, but searching does not support notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - it is "newly emerged...." 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly a promotion; does not seem notable to me. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 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 redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Cabral[edit]

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

This article is about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has lacks the three top tier fights required for notability and he also lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I actually just want to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. I attempted to redirect with a comment saying he didn't meet the criteria for individual notability, but another user disagreed so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Dutra Jr. for a similar discussion. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 ~~and Userfy~~ - Since Cabral does have a top-tier fight, it's possible he could meet WP:NMMA in the near future, but he doesn't have the top-tier bouts for that, or the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Would recommend a redirect for now and for Mulekão to userfy since he seems interested in keeping the page. Luchuslu (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 — Has 1 top-tier bout (for DREAM) and has also competed in BJJ, but there's nothing that can make him pass WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Userfication is also a good solution, as Cabral is a promising fighter and can soon meet WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 14:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since he hasn't fought in 2 years, I'm inclined to think userfication is not the best option. He seems less and less likely to meet the notability criteria as time goes on. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your second statement. Cabral has a perfect record, submitted all opponents (including the TUF ones, matches that took place between 2012-2013), is still fairly young, active and, IMO, currently stands as one of the top Brazilian prospects outside UFC and Bellator. He surely tends to compete in the major leagues. On a quick search, i found this article from Globo.com (Portuguese language) which claims that he was called to fight against Paulo Thiago at UFC Rio II, but due to contractual problems with DREAM he couldn't fight. Poison Whiskey 21:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Poison Whiskey, his career isn't over by any stretch. Plus, he is still active in BJJ tournaments around the world, so there's a chance he could pass WP:WPMA/N with a major win, like in the Copa Podio Middleweight Grand Prix he's rumored to be competing in later this year. Userfying would probably be best. Luchuslu (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any record of him as an adult at the IBJJF world championships, but I did find he finished 2nd at the European championships in 2007. If someone could provide some info showing another black belt adult medalist placement at a continental or world championship, I'd change my vote to Keep. The article really makes no mention of his BJJ tournament success. I've already added the result I found to his article. Papaursa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he's done enough to earn a keep based on his BJJ credentials (a few wins and places in second-tier tournaments, ADCC trials etc.) but there's enough of a chance he'll pass either WP:WPMA/N or WP:NMMA in the future to userfy, since he apparently was offered what would have been his second top-tier bout and he still is active in BJJ. Luchuslu (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Userfy, but doesn't that remove the article from mainspace? With a redirect the existing article is still available with a simple revert of the redirect. Papaursa (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According with the userfication process the redirect must be deleted. But now that i checked the edit history, i don't know if userfication would be good. There are already many substantial edits made by various users. I think userfication would be a good alternate solution only if the creator asks (i also don't know if an article can be userfied into a non-creator's userspace). Poison Whiskey 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I vote just a redirect. Luchuslu (talk) 14:56, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 435[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any clause of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I was unable to find the nontrivial publications about this object required for WP:NASTRO #3 and it doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no suitable sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 428[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any clause of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I was unable to find the nontrivial publications about this object required for WP:NASTRO #3 and it doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no suitable sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Wayne United Soccer Club[edit]

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

Request made by a member of the organisation's staff (VRTS ticket # 2013072710003801). It is asserted that the article contents are inaccurate and that the organisation should not be included in Wikipedia.

No opinion. L Faraone 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in the USL Premier Development League and therefore considered notable; the article simply needs improving/updating. Giant Snowman 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The name of this organization is not correct, nor the allegations of a "buy out". I would suggest letting the organization create their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCCERGIRL13 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't accept articles written by an organisation or people close to it, see WP:COI and WP:AUTO. If the issue is specific factual errors rather than the notability of the organisation, you can make suggestions on the article talk page to have them corrected. L Faraone 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Update - It clearly is in need of improvement but I'd expect nothing less for an organisation that is so newly formed. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - It is a new organization, meaning it has little history and info available. As it grows and becomes more notable it will be a good article. JacobEditor 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Club plays in a FPL and is therefore considered notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 2 August 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 Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilshire Vista, Los Angeles[edit]

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

No indication of Notability within the article. No sources mentioning this area as a "neighborhood." Not listed in The Thomas Guide or Mapping L.A. which, according to the article, includes Wilshire Vista as part of Koreatown. This is another article attempting to list small tracts which are included within the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Mid-Wilshire, Los Angeles, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 23 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, Stifle (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to larger region. We cover all places (do not delete), but not in stand alone articles. This has too little material, from suitable sources, to be a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HSP: There Is No Escape from the Terrors of the Mind[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no secondary coverage, excluding blogs BOVINEBOY2008 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NFF and being TOOSOON, and REDIRECT for now to experimental filmmaker Rouzbeh Rashidi. When this one gets released and gets the requisite independent reliable coverage, allow back to article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NFF. LibStar (talk)

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 and salt.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Martin's The Midnight Hour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted via AfD, but appears different enough not to warrant a WP:CSD#G4. Local television program. No evidence that the sources provided (most of which are from one site, horrornews.net) are WP:RS or convey any notability. Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HorrorNews.net would be usable as a reliable source since they do have an editorial board... except that in this case, these look to be reprints of press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This ultimately isn't a notable series and it doesn't look like it ever will be. This looks to be the third time that someone has created this entry, so it'd probably be worth salting this entry to avoid anyone trying to recreate it and thus putting everything through a fourth AfD process. There are some hits, but other than the primary and junk hits, things are either press releases or non-usable links such as blogs or whatnot. I found some limited local coverage, but nothing that would really show that this passes notability guidelines. If it ever passes notability guidelines it can be created in the future, but given that there have already been two deletions of the article I'd prefer that this remain salted and the proposed article approved before this is recreated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 17:49, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaf abdul jabbar[edit]

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

This was deleted under A7 and then BLP-PRODded; the latter was reverted with a kind of a source added. I can't find anything to establish her notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy A7. Having a job in the media (or a "carrer" as this article would have it), is not of encyclopaedic notability. No evidence that the subject meets the biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A7 if possible. There is no WP:RS to establish WP:GNG here. --Artene50 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 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 close as User:ThaddeusB redirected the article. Discussion will continue here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Hialeah shooting. Beerest355 Talk 19:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami hostage standoff[edit]

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

Non-notable (by Wikipedia standard) event. WP:NOTNEWS applies reddogsix (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you determine that a hostage crisis that left seven people dead in Miami is not notable? As a matter of fact, how did you determine that the X number of articles you nominated for the very same thing in a ten-minute period are not notable? DarthBotto_talk•cont 17:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you focus on the article and also read WP:UNCIVIL. As far as the article's notability please see WP:NOT. If you wish for the article to survive you need to show why WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The article may be better suited to Wikinews than Wikipedia. If I have misapplied the guidelines, feel free to point out my mistake and I'll close the AfD. My best to you.reddogsix (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events are considered non-notable (as they are generally only covered by a burst of news coverage and not enduring coverage required by WP:N), until proven otherwise. If you want to write about current news, Wikinews is thataway, and if the story develops into something more, we can then create the article. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Transcendence (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject received considerable national and international attention. NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of minor local stories, not big international stories. Additionally, the death toll pretty much guarantees this story will continue to be covered for some time, further cementing its lasting notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not about brief burst of coverage (Even if it is international), but enduring. There's no evidence this will have enduring coverage since it appears more a result of a domestic/civilian dispute than any crime at the national/international level. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, vast (international) coverage is indeed one of the signs of notability. Incidents with this level of deaths almost always remain in the news for weeks, then return to the news for the trial phase. It defies common sense to say there is no reason to believe coverage will be lasting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, vast international coverage within a short period after the event is specifically called out as not a sign of notability. It's newsworthy, but WP is not a newspaper, and fails the idea of encyclopedic notability, that years from now the event will be something that has had some influence beyond those directly affected by it. This is why we need to establish that there is an enduring amount of coverage before calling an event notable. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is simply a crime, and unless it gains some other facet of notability it is not encyclopedic in nature. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This incident is also at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Hialeah shooting. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Hialeah shooting, any article on this crime fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy and WP:EVENT guideline, there is no indication that this tragic event will be a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"; there does not appear to be any significant coverage outside of the US on this what little there is is unlikely to continue outside the current news cycle. This is what Wikinews is for. LGA _talk^edits 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed - I have WP:BOLDly redirected the title to 2013 Hialeah shooting since both cover the same subject and that article is superior. As noted above that title is also nominated for deletion - no need to have the same discussion twice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 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 delete. I will provide a copy for userfication if asked, so long as development takes place in userspace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Office Bistro[edit]

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

Article about a newly opened restaurant. Sources are the regional press with routine announcements about the opening, one is an Advertiser feature. Per WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia:ADVERT. A CSD was declined by an IP editor. Ben Ben (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking closer, the article obviously meets the WP:GNG as well as the WP:ORG guideline. Some changes have been made to the article, and it is not finished yet. I intend to add additional print sources in the next day or two. One of the article sources is not online, so that may be one cause of the confusion. This appears to be a case of an overhasty nomination. The subject is covered in reliable sources, including newspapers and books, in a way that is not trivial. The depth and independence of the sources appears to argue strongly for inclusion. For reference, the page is modeled after a similar city-restaurant landmark, Portland City Grill. There were some links to company-created content for reference, and perhaps the nominator mistook those sources as the only ones - but there are in fact multiple independent non-trivial sources. John Stenson (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)— John Stenson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I should note that while I have been editing on many subjects since 2006, I only recently registered this account. That may be one reason why User:Ben_Ben was concerned the article may be promoted by an WP:SPA. —John Stenson 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting edit you did in this discussion: [2]. You wrote this as IP Special:Contributions/50.45.159.67 and later changed your signature to John Stenson. That's not the problem, but this was the same IP that declined the CSD on your article. Same IP wrote on your talk page [3] like a third person. You are ~~cheating~~ canvassing, John! --Ben Ben (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC) - --Ben Ben (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting oddly personal. I have responded at your talk page. I at no time "cheated" and I hope you will retract that statement. I saw a need and worked to fill it, [personal information redacted]. Please WP:AGF, as I will try to do toward you. —John Stenson 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, you should read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Off-wiki contacting an editor to persuade him to join in to a deletion discussion and to delete a CSD tag (your son as an IP [4]) is considered inappropriate and disruptive. Even if you didn't actively persuade him, he is your son and did was sons have to do. IP editing close to a new editors edits has a taste. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add your printed, reliable, non trivial, in-depth, independent, multiple independent non-trivial sources to the article.--Ben Ben (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Multiple news articles that are reliable and nontrivial are already added. Two other print sources I will add in the near future, I am in the process of procuring them. [personal information redacted] working on getting the additional print sources ready. Noticed that this landmark did not have an article, even though similar landmark restaurants (like the one noted above, and many more) do have articles. I know we get a lot of "spam" here on Wikipedia though, so I will try to make the notability plainer. —John Stenson 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been added. Except ConcernedVancouverites ((fact)) tags. Thanks to CV for that. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 reliable sources at time of posting. 2 more are coming, but it has been less than a day since you posted this hasty AfD. —John Stenson 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy. Give the article creator a chance to work on it in his userspace and provide sources, but remove it from the main namespace at this time due to failure to establish notability. Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local coverage of a local restaurant. I see no significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost certainly a prank article creation by a banned editor trying to make a point. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an intriguing allegation. What evidence led you to that conclusion? Ibadibam (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An IP editor has added two additional references to the article today. Both were improperly formated. Another, registered user tried to repair them but failed, cause both links are dead. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done what I can to fix the refs, but I have to say, they don't really point to anything useful. I switched the inline citation tags to be more suitable to the problems the sources pose. Ibadibam (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have not had time to add the additional sources as I indicated I would. I still think it stands on its own as is. However, if consensus indicates that it is not yet ready for mainspace, please move it to my user space so I can add information in the coming weeks, as there are several additional sources that may change the minds of some. —John Stenson 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black coin[edit]

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

I can find no reference to such a drink online. Possibly hoax or made up one day. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or something WP:MADEUP at the bar one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any sources to even verify that this exists. Fails WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't be verified. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's actually a pretty good drink, all told. And I can confirm that yes, it does exist. But I'm not exactly a reliable source (and I was drunk at the time besides). Delete as per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing notable about mixing whiskey and triple sec. Andrew³²⁷ 14:59, 2 August 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. Splitting discussion should take place at talk page, no consensus for deletion at this time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal furniture[edit]

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

Seems to have very little relevance to Wikipedia. References are borderline at best - the first is a book for entrepreneurs which has nothing to do with animals or pets. The second is a book on cat breeding and the preview on Google Books, which has been linked to in the reference, has only one mention of "Cat furniture" which is a caption. The external link provided in the "See also" section leads to what appears to be a commercial website "architecture for dogs". The content this article covers, e.g. dog beds, litter boxes, kennels, scratching posts, etc. seems to be well covered by existing articles, and I have never heard the phrase "animal furniture" used in common language. teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 14:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search of google books and google news archive indicates that this is a highly notable topic. The topic includes both furniture made for animals (a modern trend toward increasingly extravagant pieces) and furniture made from animals (a notable trend in the Victorian era). The article is relatively new and was a stub at the time of the nomination. I will do a bit of work to build it up over the next couple days. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to split the content into two articles (one on "Pet furniture" and the other on "Wardian furniture" -- the name given to Victorian furniture made out of animals) and keep the existing page as a disambiguation page. But I do not think the existing page should be deleted in any event. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two separate pages and keep as dab per Cbl62 and kind-of precedent at Animal transportation (which used to be what is now Transportation of animals). Not much more I can say here. Ansh666 01:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cbl62. Nice expansion; I had not considered furniture made from animals. Hmmm... Now what is baby furniture made of? XD ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...oh god why... Ansh666 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is the result, that's for sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devilish grin * ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Split It is a reasonable search term, but the two meanings have no connection with each other so should not be in a single article. I am unsure about use of the term Wardian furniture as a title, however. A search on Google suggests that Wardian in respect to furniture normally applies, and applied, to the Wardian case for plants. The 1896 Strand magazine article quoted does not mention Ward, and an article about Rowland Ward suggests that he faced a good deal of competition, and it was used as a brand name. The citation for the Wardian furniture name actually sticking as a generic term dates from 2011, and the dictionaries only have Wardian case. I see no evidence that it is the term under which people would be likely to look, and none that it is the 'proper' name for furniture made from animals. --AJHingston (talk) 10:13, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleazy Jack[edit]

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

Porn actor who fails WP:PORNBIO. I can't find a single hit that discusses him. Beerest355 Talk 14:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this article for failing GNG and PORNBIO, but now it looks more like an outright hoax. The only evidence that Jack and his films are real comes from HotMovies. This porn star is so obscure that he is not even in IMDb or IAFD. The supplied references either don't check out or are to nonspecific to verify. Zero reliable source coverage. Fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis. Neither the supposed performer nor the videos appear to exist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Peramos railway station[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable railway station. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail general notability guidelines and WP:NOTDIR. It seems that the author of these articles is trying to make directory of train stops. Possibly these titles could be redirected or merged with the article for the railway line, assuming that the railway line article itself is notable:

- Mr X 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC), 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is more of lack of sources for the articles under WP:CITE. There's already an article for every station in Greater London, including the Overground (our equivalent to the Proastiakos), but they all have sources and images. --Marianian^(talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. These articles were only created a few hours ago and it is way too early to say that they are not capable of meeting WP:STATION. Already they have useful content and all look legitimate stubs. We need to avoid systemic bias and give ample time for sources in Greek to be researched. They seem to have the potential for notability so this is a case where the pages should be tagged for improvement and allowed to develop, the way that the Project grows. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to change my !vote to keep if, in the next week, sources are identified showing that these individual station are notable, which seems pretty unlikely. As far it being too early to consider deletion, that's not really a good argument, since it's up to the author to verify that a subject is notable before creating an article. - Mr X 21:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They are valid stubs and because of the language it will take longer to research references (than London). Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This is cowardly, as there are many articles on North American stations you could have targeted. Have a go at Category:Muni Metro stations which are mostly just curbside stops. These stations are real buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.188.147 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — 50.100.188.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment This does seem to be targeted at a new user. Stations on the same line which were created by other people remain untouched. I have notified editors who may be interested but were unaware of these new articles. Sw2nd (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I simply nominated articles in the new page patrol queue that do not seem to meet our inclusion standards. If each of these stations have been written about in reliable, independent sources, then they should be kept. If not, then the information could easily be included in summary form in the article for each railway line, assuming the railway lines are notable. - Mr X 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all in my opinion as per WP:DONTBITE, and another question is what is stopping prevent Athens' stations from having the same scope as London's stations? Check out List of London railway stations and List of London Underground stations: all 366 National Rail and 270 Underground stations are on Wikipedia. --Marianian^(talk) 14:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bite the new user, or at least not intentionally. I simply nominated articles in the new page patrol queue that do not seem to meet our inclusion standards. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a compelling argument. A sample of some of the London station articles indicate that they are notable, and have a history that would be valuable for an encyclopedia. - Mr X 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The timetable for the few I checked is here. Oh and Keep per the usual outcome for railway stations. Edgepedia (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Megara railway station is a content fork of Megara station; these need to be merged. Edgepedia (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:OUTCOMES - railway stations are generally deemed to be notable. New page patrol or not this does smell of WP:BITE and the nominator should remember not to assume things aren't notable and punch delete with lightning speed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per others. It's absolutely impossible for these stations, which are all multi-million Euro projects, to exist without extensive in-depth government studies, reports and construction and operational statistics. Besides the WP:BITE occurring (New user Oh Yeaaahh deserves commendation for all the work they've put into these station articles), I'm curious if this is case of systemic bias as equivalent metro stations other nations' capitol/largest cities like New York or London would never be considered for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE G11 (snow). Alexf^(talk) 11:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion (2013 film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a future film. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 13:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: self-promoting and fails WP:NFILM. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flat Out and nom. GregJackP Boomer! 19:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been Speedied as blatant spam instead of wasting a whole week on this AfD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the word "confusion" in conjunction with the word "film" and the number "2013", are so common as to give innumerable false results, the AFD template has assigned a problematic findsources. We can instead look for sources which may mention the title in connection to purported director, writer/producer, production company, as well as trying searches for some of the actors:

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

In looking, it would seem that the best we might consider is that it is simply TOO SOON under WP:NFF for this film to have an article. Delete and allow back if/when it is released and gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a unremarkable film with blatant advertising. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable currently. Maybe if and when the film is released. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete SPAM and part of a campaign of spam. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was speedy deleted and has been re-created. This AfD was not closed in the intervening period. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 1 August 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 Nick Zedd. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totem of the Depraved[edit]

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

Hardly a notable book. Wlmg (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nick Zedd. I've found mentions of this, but most of what I've found has been brief mentions in passing to Zedd himself. I do see where this is a pretty definitive work of his, but there just isn't enough coverage to where this would pass WP:NBOOK at this point in time. The difficulty is that I have a feeling that there is more out there, but that it hasn't been brought over to the internet. Niche coverage tends to have this difficulty, but the problem is that we can't guarantee that it's out there. Until/if the point comes that this passes NBOOK, this can redirect to Zedd's article. I have no problem with someone userfying any of the info, although I'd like to request that they write a little more neutrally than this article was: phrases like "a rare autobiography" and "scathing" tend to come across more like something you'd read on a book sleeve as a promotional blurb. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 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. There appears to be a general consensus that notability for the subject has not been established. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KSSOLV[edit]

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

A mass of references but do any of them provide evidence that this tool is of interest to anyone except theoretical physicists? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theoretical physicists read wikipedia too. Notability is demonstrated with references to well respected journals. The article could be made more accessible by readers without a masters degree in Math or Physics but that's not a reason for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with your previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Programming_with_Big_Data_in_R, there is no WP policy that states an article needs to be notable outside a given specialty. Instead the real criteria for AfD are whether (1) there are multiple independent in-depth reliable sources and (2) the article has surmountable problems. The article has five references, all to peer-reviewed articles in mainstream math, physics and chemistry journals that are all considered reliable sources. One concern is that all the references about KSSOLV involve the project originators, but there exist independent articles such as Adaptive Regularized Self-Consistent Field Iteration with Exact Hessian for Electronic Structure Calculation and Anderson Acceleration of Fixed-point Iteration with Applications to Electronic Structure Computations that consider KSSOLV in depth. Multiple independent sources show this topic to be notable. There are article problems--I agree with RadioFan that the article is too technical, and the further reading list is too extensive--but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the further reading list to the most relevant sources, and revised to make the article less technical (hopefully). Many thanks for pointing that out. Tamcd00dle (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "five references" mentioned by User:Mark viking above are insufficient to establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With changes made to the article, the "five references" is now out of date. Of the current references in the article, at least (1) C. Yang, J. C. Meza, B. Lee, and L-W. Wang. KSSOLV: A MATLAB toolbox for solving the Kohn-Sham equations. ACM Trans. Math. Soft., 36 (2009), pp. 1-35, (2) Wen, Zaiwen, et al. Adaptive regularized self-consistent field iteration with exact Hessian for electronic structure calculation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 35.3 (2013): A1299-A1324, and (3) Ni, Peng. Anderson acceleration of fixed-point iteration with applications to electronic structure computations. Diss. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2009 deal with KSSOLV in depth and the first two are peer reviewed articles. I have not checked the others for depth of coverage on KSSOLV. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Contrary to what is apparently RadioFan's contention, most of the references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. (In particular, no reference published prior to KSSOLV's introduction in 2009 can possibly have anything to do with KSSOLV.) Looking at google scholar shows that the paper introducing KSSOLV receives only 14 citations, which I think is too little to merit an encyclopedia article. I also don't think that using this toolbox to do a numerical calculation in a research article rises to the level of notability needed for an encyclopedia article (contrary to Mark viking's argument for keeping). Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references predate the creation of this package, and therefore certainly cannot establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "further reading" pages predate 2009, but the references are either explanations of background information or recent papers about KSSOLV. Tamcd00dle (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Background explanations" do not establish notability. Your first reference "W. Kohn and L. J. Sham. Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys. Rev., 140., (4A): A1133-A11388, 1965" dates from 1965 and cannot establish notability of software introduced half a century later. It seems there is a good chance KSSOLV will become notable in the future, but trying to push it through at this early stage when notability is marginal merely wastes everybody's time. Tkuvho (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I deleted the first reference (the Wikipedia page for Kohn-Sham equations should suitably explain the concept) and now all the references are relevant and directly discuss the KSSOLV software. Tamcd00dle (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:V is fairly easy to meet for software, and this page seems to do so. Prodego ^talk 14:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not really addressing the point of this AfD. As you correctly point out, verifiability is easy to meet. However, this does not establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tkuvho The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not notability. That's why WP:V is a policy, and WP:N is not. Prodego ^talk 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD. Notability is precisely what needs to be determined. (See the deletion policy: WP:DEL#REASON number 8.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very common misconception that notability is the inclusion requirement, but it is not so. The notability guidelines exist purely to more easily distinguish cases where verifiability (through independent, reliable sources) is likely to exist. You'll notice this in WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria". In other words, if there is significant coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to be a topic with sufficient verifiability. Prodego ^talk 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the very question of notability is whether the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has it? The original ACM publication is not independent of the subject. Are there other sources that address the subject in detail, rather than just mentioning it in passing (e.g., "The Matlab toolbox KSSOLV was used to perform this calculation.")? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the question of notability, yes: "is there is significant coverage in reliable sources?" If there is will be possible to verify the material of the article, and it will meet WP:V. In my opinion the sources cited are sufficiently reliable to verify the material which is cited to them. You may disagree. But either way AfD is all about deciding whether it is possible to verify the material within an article. Prodego ^talk 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might think it all comes down to WP:V, but you would be wrong. I maintain that, while the content in the article might be perfectly verifiable, the subject is insufficiently notable. It hasn't been the subject of independent in-depth reviews normally required for notability of software. Again, see the deletion policy: WP:V and WP:N are listed as separate items. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prodego's attempt to deny an explicit WP:AfD policy is surprising. The guidelines explicitly list the following as one of the criteria for deletion: "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. Denying explicit wiki policy undermines the credibility of User:Prodego's vote. Tkuvho (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prodego has been editing for approximately twice as much time as User:Tkuvho, and has a perspective that is based on the evolution of the deletion, notability, and verifiability policies over many years. Discounting his viewpoint because of a single item on a list, particularly an item that he does not disagree with, does not make much sense. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Prodego: Congratulations upon your impressive record of contributing to wiki. As far as notability is concerned, two editors here have provided links to specific guidelines asserting that notability is a factor in AfD discussions. You are the only one who seems to be claiming that notability is not a factor. An editor who disregards such guidelines undermines his own credibility as far as the AfD process is concerned. Meanwhile, I appreciate (and do not discount) your viewpoint. Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Prodego is such an experienced editor, it is rather baffling that he (or she) seems to want to discount the notability guideline as irrelevant—first by claiming that it is "only a guideline" [5], and then by quoting out of context that very same guideline [6]. This is not Prodego's first AfD, and he (or she) knows full well that many if not most AfD discussions center on the question of notability of the subject. So User:Prodego is strongly advised to reflect on the behavioral guideline WP:POINT in addition to the deletion policy. If Prodego disagrees with the deletion policy as currently stated, as his or her last comment seems to indicate, then the appropriate forum for trying to change that policy is through a request for comment at the relevant discussion page. It is obviously inappropriate to try to redefine radically the deletion policy during a deletion discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all the references are for background information on the type of problem this software is meant to solve; they don't actually discuss (or even mention) this software package in particular. The remaining references are all to primary sources. So as far as I can tell the article is supported by no sources at all which are independent of the subject and which cover it in detail. WP:GNG is not met. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included 10 references. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, as they are written by the creators of KSSOLV. The other sources, though, directly mention and cite KSSOLV in particular: I have read through each of the papers to ensure that. As I have mentioned, 3 of the sources are not independent; the rest, however, are completely independent, are written by academics around the globe, and are published in notable journals. I understand your concern, but I must disagree. Tamcd00dle (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tamcd00dle: Subtracting 3 from 11 one usually gets 8. Now 8 citations is not much to go on if you are trying to establish the notability of a subject. If that's all that KKSOLV is going for it at this point, it should definitely be deleted for lack of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that of the remaining 8 citations, 4 are either preprints or unpublished dissertations. That leaves us with 8-4=4 potentially acceptable citations, definitely not enough to establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the numerology. The quality of the references is more relevant. Passing mention of KSSOLV does not contribute to its notability, but an in-depth discussion does. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to evaluate the quality of unpublished references, such as an arxiv post? Tkuvho (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. My point is that four independent secondary sources published in reasonable journals discussing a subject in detail easily establishes notability. (I'm not going to quibble about arxiv and other self-published venues: usually these are not acceptable as sources, but sometimes they are. That's not really relevant to my point though.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up the arxiv preprint. After some searching around, I have found the proper publication source for reference [3]. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, as I have mentioned, although they provide good information on KSSOLV. [5] and [6] mention KSSOLV and explain the methodology of the software generally. [3], [4], [7], and [8] go into depth on KSSOLV, and base their research on that program. [9] uses KSSOLV for research as well. Tamcd00dle (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a book discussing the toolset I might agree that it definitely satisfies GNG, but what we have here is a much shorter publication which used the toolset. The Journal on Scientific Computing publication does not give significant coverage, only the briefest of descriptions before they focus on their own work, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; it's the quality, not the number, of the references which count. Tamcd00dle, could you please point to those published references which discuss the software in depth? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marginal notability, this could go either way really; it rests on two articles, one a thesis, the other a single article using KSSOLV but not writing about it. I would really expect a notable toolset to be mentioned in more works and in lots of detail. I'll note that being of interest only to experts in a particular mainstream field does not make something non-notable, else we would delete most physics articles. I do not see the article being technical as a problem, it is an inherently technical topic. It would be preferable if the background information also included some maths to demonstrate the points being made, but that doesn't factor into delete vs keep. IRWolfie- (talk)

Keep Even if you disqualify ref 1[] etc. based on non-independence, aren't refs [6], [9] etc. alone sufficient for notability? SPat ^talk 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Disclosure: I am affiliated to one of the institutions mentioned in the article.[reply]

Now [6] and [8]. Tamcd00dle (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tamcd00dle has been editing the article since I started writing this, so I've lost track of most of the specific references I was referring to. But I've gone through them all and see only one that contributes to establishing notability, namely the dissertation by Ni. The rest are either non-independant, just say that they used KSSOLV but don't really talk about it in depth, or don't even mention it in the running text (but rather just include [1] in their references). Note that in depth discussion of algorithms that solve the Kohn-Sham equations is not the same as in depth discussion of KSSOLV. I don't think there's enough to merit KSSOLV having its own article. What I do think these references show is that there's a lot of interesting stuff that can be added to Kohn–Sham equations. I'd recommend that any relevant info and sources be moved there and this article then be deleted. 786b6364 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 786b6364's comment seems aimed at the references in the article, but the exact same thing can be said about mentions of KSSOLV that can be found in Google scholar: only Ni's thesis looks to have independent non-trivial coverage, and it isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that passing mention or insignifigant coverage does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Coverage that is not independent but lacking sufficient citation rates cannot be considered notable either. I also agree that reporting on solutions for Kohn-Sham equations is not the same as in-depth reporting on KSSOLV. This may achieve notability someday, but the difficulty is that it is a tool set most likely subordinate to other research. However, hopefully I do not sound like I am diminishing its usefulness. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others who have pointed to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While the article is referenced, the references mostly cover background not directly related to the subject of the article. Those references that do address KSSOLV are not sufficiently independent or significant to meet the WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to everyone who has participated in this AfD. I would just like to add some comments - [5] and [6] mention KSSOLV and explain the methodology of the software generally. [3], [4], [7], and [8] go into depth on KSSOLV, and base their research on that program. [9] uses KSSOLV for research as well. Those sources are independent. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, although they provide the most information about KSSOLV. Tamcd00dle (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It seems to have been reasonably established that this is a useful piece of software. What has not been established at all is its notability. Usually a topic has to have much more than a handful of references to be a suitable subject of a page here. Tkuvho (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: refs 3, 6, 7 and 8 are about KSSOLV, or are research papers that employ KSSOLV in their methodologies? Is there any independent research or other coverage directly about KSSOLV as its subject? --Batard0 (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comppletely Rewrite. Not so much "Completely", but as it stands, this is very promotional , especially the "Setup" section . Dimension10 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the notability concerns raised by a number of editors. Tkuvho (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Tkuvho. "Rewrite" and "promotional" wording are copy edit and content issues and do not address the notability of this subject. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG is our guiding document, and this is not notable by that document. —Wasell^(T) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prodego and Tamcd00dle; meets WP:V and WP:NSOFT. Miniapolis 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NSOFT guideline you mentioned specifically states that "Wikipedia is not a directory of all software that can be confirmed to exist". Therefore notability still needs to be established. Tkuvho (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are used that pass verifiability, but not in a way that shows this subject to be notable. Apparently, the sources do not adequately show that KSSOLV is, as yet, significant in its particular field, per WP:NSOFT. Also it does not seem to fit the inclusion criteria for WP:NSOFT either. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 7 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia[edit]

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

The article list several events in a period of 80 years and more. I wanted to improve it, but it is not possible. First it presents the incidents having happened during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1918-20s, which resulted in the eviction of population from both sides. Then the decision taken by the Soviet authorities in 1947 to resettle Azerbaijanis, signed by the Azeri side by Bagirov during the Population transfers in the Soviet Union. Then the incidents of late 1980s and beginning of 1990s between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That's mostly what the article is all about. Several unrelated events mostly during the clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan. JediXmaster (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Note also that there is another article of the same kind which includes the said deportations titled: Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia Is it accepted in Wikipedia to have two articles about basically the same subject? JediXmaster (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 16. Snotbot t • c » 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Rename to "Deportations of Azerbaijanis from Armenia". The article clearly shows that Armenia lost much of its Azeri population due to forceful and often state-sanctioned relocations, which many sources (cited in the article) refer to as deportations, and that this was a continuous process throughout the twentieth century. While many of those cases took place as a result of armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan (which does not undermine the fact of a deportation), some happened in the time of peace, e.g. in 1948–1950. The article is well-sourced, and I am truly puzzled as to how this huge body of useful, neutral and relevant information can be nominated for deletion. Parishan (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really puzzled? This is equivalent to creating Deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and including 1905-07 clash, the events in the 1918-20s, which includes Baku massacre, Shushi, Nakhichevan etc., and the more recent events from the 80s and 90s. Each event is unrelated and can have its own article, one article including them is the creators synthesis and choice on what to include or not, and that's unencyclopedic. JediXmaster (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why are you requesting the article's deletion, when you could just request a split? To have such a huge and well sourced article deleted, you really need to bring up some substantial arguments, and "I wanted to rewrite it, but I couldn't" is simply not enough. All this documented information cannot just "perish" in a simple deletion. Let us see what your argumentation is based on:

You accuse the article of covering consequences of armed conflicts, but that does not "undo" the fact of the deportations. Furthermore, the deportations clearly took place at non-war times as well, such as 1948–1950.
You claim that the 1948 decree was signed by Baghirov, of which I saw no proof in the article. What I did see, though, is neutral sources such as Donald Bloxham and Vladislav Zubok referring to this act as a case of deportation initiated at the insistence of Grigory Arutyunov.
You stated that the article covers isolated incidents, however all of these cases underlyingly had the same motivations, as noted by De Waal who lists them together in Chapter 5 of Black Garden and also Suny who writes: "A second reason for Armenian unity and coherence was the fact that progressively through the seventy years of Soviet power, the republic grew more Armenian in population until it became the most ethnically homogeneous republic in the USSR. On several occasions local Muslims were removed from its territory and Armenians from neighboring republics settled in Armenia."

I honestly do not see anything "unencyclopedic" about this article. Parishan (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the article was suggested for deletion prior. I agree with spliting it, but the original has then to be removed for that. Regarding the motivations being similair for the different events, I disagree, and one or two book is not sufficient to all make them related. Concerning Bagirov, he sent a letter on Dec, 10, 1947 in which he gave consent. See Jamil Hasanli book Stalin and the Turkish Crisis of the Cold War, 1945-1953, pg. 271. The event was not as simple as discribed, besides the Armenians implemented to replace them left in the 50s. I just wonder though, would you agree to the creation of an equivalent article on Armenians from Azerbaijan? JediXmaster (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if that were really the case, which it is not. There were no systematic deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, except in the early 1990s, and there is already an article on that. It was Yerevan that went from being 49% Azeri in 1897 to 0.7% Azeri in 1959, as opposed to Baku where the Armenian population was constantly on the rise, just like in all of Azerbaijan. In any event, cases of deportations of Azeris are not mentioned in "one or two books", and if you really believe so, you should have done better research before nominating this article. For your information, the very book you are quoting (I mean Jamil Hasanli) also describes it as a deportation in the paragraph you are referring to, regardless of who signed for it. Again, I do not see why this article should be deleted: even a split does not presuppose that. Parishan (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, the article was never nominated for deletion. JediXmaster (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I confused it with a different article; which, however, does not spare the nomination from being well substantiated. Parishan (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that was really the case? So, Nakhichevan Armenians did not have the same fate, neither those in Shushi, or Baku in 1918-20? Besides, you are comparing apples with oranges, Armenia integrity was threatned from the refugees it recieved from the Ottoman Empire, you can't compare. JediXmaster (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a documented case of deportation of Armenians from any of those places. Parishan (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content is encyclopaedic, and supported by multiple third party sources. The events described in the article are linked by third party sources, in particular Thomas de Waal [7]:

Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijani people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest.

Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. NYU Press, 2003. ISBN 0814719457, 9780814719459. p.80.

Grandmaster 07:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and De Waal says many other things, point is that Armenians from Nakhichevan, Baku, Shushi etc. in the 1918-20s had the same fate, as well as those in 88-90s. It's equivalent to splitting the Armenian-Tatar massacre of 1905-07 to only include Tatars without context. Besides 1947-51, the other cases involved both sides. JediXmaster (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians were not systematically deported. There's a difference. Grandmaster 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are the examples I have provided? JediXmaster (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Parishan already responded to that. Massacres are not the same as deportations. There's no evidence of any forcible deportation of Armenians from Azerbaijan before late 1980s. Grandmaster 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One example. Nakhichevan: They point instead to the example of Sharur-Nakhichevan, which has been denuded of its Armenian population,... The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia by S. Frederick Starr, p. 247 Tell me what was different between what happened in Nakhichevan and elsewhere? Besides, why are we debating when there is already already an article covering all those events at Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are really no neutral sources claiming anything of that sort. Even in the one you are referring to, it is not the author's opinion; he is quoting Karabakh Armenians. It is strange that you find that dubious quote enough to conclude that there have been deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, while ignoring many more neutral sources which openly refer to Azeri relocations from Armenia as deportations, calling them "one or two books". Anyway, why are we even discussing Nakhchivan here? It is completely irrelevant.

As for your reference to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, the latter article is not identical to this one; the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment is a sociopolitical occurrence and has been common regardless of Azeri presence in Armenia. More so, while deportations targeted the Azeri population of Armenia specifically, the article on the sentiment refers to the attitudes of Armenians towards anything associated with Azeris, including the Republic of Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not merely quoting them, what happened in Nakhichevan is recorded, including when it has hapenned, see Maintenance of Peace in Armenia:Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Azerbaijani side evicted the British along with the American relief workers to then massacre and push away the Armenian population. And I am not ignoring anything at all, what I wrote about one or two books, was that only that much could be found dumping all evictions together, and even then, De Waal refers to Zangezur only for the given period, which was not different than what happened in Nakhichevan. Besides, like stated what happened in 1947 was part of a larger policy spamming several decades in the Soviet Union, it also includes the eviction of Kurds from Nakhichevan in 1937, even Armenian eviction in 1951.

On Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, whatever you say, the other article covers the same thing only worded differently, social or not, it is basically identical in content, something you could hardly deny. JediXmaster (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JediXmaster, I am sorry, but I am not going to argue with you on the fact that when an author writes "Karabakh Armenians point to..." he or she really quotes someone, as opposed to expressing his or her own opinion.

The fact of the matter is that cases of authority-sanctioned expulsions of Azeris from Armenia in a systematic way throughout the twentieth century are quite a well-described historical fact, which Armenian experiences in Azerbaijan (at least until the early 1990s) can hardly be compared to (speaking of which, squeezed-out sources like Maintenance of Peace in Armenia violate WP:PRIMARY). It is all in the article, and should not be deleted only because you think they are not orderly enough or because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or does not exist, for that matter. Azeri deportations were not typical Stalinist population transfers; the latter were implemented against groups that were seen as anti-Soviet or counter-revolutionary, whereas the Azeri deportation was initially disguised as "voluntary resettlement". It was a measure taken to reach a clear goal set out by the Armenian authorities and mentioned in a number of neutral sources, that is the ethnic homogenisation of Armenia. There were no such objectives in Azerbaijan at any point in history.

Again, only because the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment article repeats some of the information here, it does not mean it should be deleted. Deportations were undoubtedly triggered by that sentiment, but they were by far not its only manifestation. Parishan (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, you can argue or not, that quote is not stating according to or the allegations of, it points, the author stat they point. But if you really want more sources, here we go: The Azeris soon looked to Turkish support to oust the Armenians from Nakhichevan, while the Armenians were eager to eject the Azeris from Zanzegur. Johnson, Robert (2007), Oil, Islam and Conflict: Central Asia Since 1945, Reaktion Books pg. 168

Regarding the deportation of 1947-51 being not typical, it's not different than the Kurdish deportation. Also anti-Azerbaijani sentiment is not repeating some, it contains all, by its content, what is included in this article, all. JediXmaster (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnson quote does not clarify whether the author meant Armenian troops or ethnic Armenians; I am inclined to believe it is the former since Nakhchivan still had substantial Armenian population at the time of Sovietisation. The Kurdish deportation of the 1930s was one-time and affected all of the Caucasus (Kurds were deported from Azerbaijan in 1937–1938 and from Georgia in 1944, as well) as a "politically untrustworthy element" which was a typical Soviet policy, whereas the Azeris were constantly removed from Armenia for the purpose of ethnically homogenizing (i.e. Armenianising) the country and at the insistence of the Armenian authorities. I hope the difference is clear. Parishan (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the difference is not clear to me. Korenizatsiya and ethnic homogenization was a pan-Soviet nationalities policy. De Waal discusses Azerification and Azerbaijani settlement programs in Nagorno-Karabakh in his Black Garden. Jackal 05:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korenizatsiya had absolutely nothing to do with ethnic homogenization or deportations; it was simply a measure to increase native representation in the local governments. Azerbaijani settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh never involved any population transfers either, even according to De Waal; it was voluntary and occurring on an individual basis. In any case, drawing loads of hardly relevant examples ranging from Nakhchivan to korenizatsiya is a waste of time. I would like to remind that comparisons are not the best way to argue why you think an article should be deleted. Parishan (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're as guilty for entairtaining the non-relevant examples. If you want right to the point answer, please adequately explain to me on the why for maintaining an article which content is a duplicate of another article. And please this time without the sociological excuse, because this does not change the truth of their duplicate nature. Thank you. JediXmaster (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the article Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia shows that along with the deportations it addresses a wide range of other issues which are not thoroughly discussed in the article in question, e.g. the destruction of Azeri cultural heritage, toponymy reforms and encouragement of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment after the war both towards ethnic Azeris and the Republic of Azerbaijan. None of this is relevant to the deportation issue, which deserves a separate slot and a more detailed description. Parishan (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All what I had ro write, I did. I'll let the voters vote. JediXmaster (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korenizatsiya reinforced national identity in the Soviet republics (see Martin, Birgerson) and I would posit that it did have something to do with homogenization and deportations. I will have to get back to you on de Waal–I know I have a copy of that book somewhere. Also, I still believe that the article needs to be put in the context of the demographic exchange between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Jackal 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identity and deportations have nothing in common in this case; please do not engage in WP:OR. "Demographic exchange" does not reflect the situation accurately: there is a fine difference between the constant increase in the Armenian population of Azerbaijan vs. the fluctuation of the Azeri population in Armenia caused by waves of state-sanctioned deportations. If there even was a gradual outflow of Armenians from areas such as Nakhchivan, there is no evidence to call that a deportation or claim that the state was somehow involved. Parishan (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since any passage from any source seems to be fair game in this article (except when it contradicts the narrative it's trying to build), here's one from Bruce Grant's "Cosmpolitan Baku" (which, unlike Zubok's book, for example, specifically focuses on the region): "Between 1989 and 1999, some 175,000 registered Armenians left the city [Baku]; in return, some 225,000 Azeris coming to Baku from Armenia and the war-torn territories of Karabagh registered in their place (Yunusov 2009:65–66), demographic substitutions that transformed the city’s social networks overnight."

Also, "identity and deportations have nothing in common in this case?" Really? How's that again? Jackal 07:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue, the title of the article will prevent it from providing contexts, like the events in 1989-90s. I rest my case. JediXmaster (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal, a quick generalizing comment by a random author cannot shed enough light on the situation, especially when it claims that 225,000 Azeris arrived in Baku overnight, which they certainly did not (it was a lengthier process and the destinations were various). Yury Pompeev (Кровавый омут Карабаха, p. 87), for example, mentions an instance of the Azeri deportation from Spitak under a military convoy.

"Really? How's that again?" Because korenizatsiya did not engage masses, to begin with; it was merely an administrative measure to appoint natives to key government positions in their respective republics. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge There's some kernel of truth to the information written in this article, but not enough to retain it under its current name. There were no systematic deportations of Tatars/Azeris during the disturbances of 1905-06, nor during the independence period of 1919-20. The removal of Azeris during the post-war years is perhaps the only event that closely falls within the definition of expulsion, but I'd still want to see better sources. What happened in the twilight years of the USSR is tragic, but here, too, the use of the word deportation is inappropriate. There were no state-sanctioned moves to depopulate Armenia of its Azerbaijani population and if anything the only deportations that did take place were in the regions of Shahumyan and Getashen, and that was directed against Armenians and carried out by the Soviet Army and Azerbaijani OMON. Let's not forget that tens of thousands of Armenians left Azerbaijan, willingly or unwillingly, because of violence and numerous pogroms. This article is nothing but a mishmash of events separated from one another by much as several decades and brought together under a single, misleading heading. It is perhaps on par with the drivel about Armenians having committed "genocides" (in the plural) against Azeris for the past 200 years. Whatever can be salvaged can just go to the Azerbaijanis in Armenia page.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the claim of homogenization is contradicted when Yezidis and Muslim Kurds found a relative haven in Soviet Armenia, which proved to be a focal point for the Soviet Kurdish community. While The Azerbaijani leadership... obstructed any rehabilitation: no Kurdish schools in any sense were ever reopened, no books printed. Even the very existence of Kurds in Azerbaijan was often deemed unmentionable. Azerbaijani scholars generally did not publish on the Kurds of their republic,... [HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE YEZIDI MINORITY IN THE TRANSCAUCAUSUS (ARMENIA, GEORGIA, AZERBAIJAN)] JediXmaster (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Waal links the events in 1918-1920, 1940 and late 1980s as a chain of systematic efforts on homogenising the ethnic composition of the population of the Republic of Armenia. That is clearly not Azerbaijani propaganda, and not original research. Grandmaster 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a page can be built on the basis of the opinion of a journalist (see my comment about one or two books)? Besides, he mentions only Zangezur for the events of 1918-1920, which statistics of Azeri fell from one census to the next. How was that different than what happened in Nakhichevan, where the Armenian population melted from 53,000 to 11,276 from one census to the next? The homogenising the ethnic composition claimed by De Waal is contradicted by a report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the situation of Yezidis and other Kurds, which claims that Armenia was haven to the Kurds while in Azerbaijan they were discriminated and assimilated. JediXmaster (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find info about forcible cleanisng and massacre of Azeris in Zangezur in other sources too. Bloxham, for instance: [8]

On the Armenian side, many of the key perpetrators were the former leaders of the volunteer battalions and Turkish-Armenian 'self-defense' operations. From mid-1918, Andranik was prominent in the destruction of Muslim settlements during the purging of the Armenian-Azeri border region of Zangezur. Hovannisian describes his actions as the beginning of the process of 'transforming Zangezur into a solidly Armenian land'. Alexandr Khatisian, one-time Prime minister of Armenia, used similar language, averring that 'it was not the will of the diplomats which was to bring about homogeneous populations in this or that region, but through the course of elemental behaviour'. Andranik was stopped from expanding this policy into Karabakh by the local British commander, who had his own distinct political agenda.

Andranik brought with him 30,000 Armenian refugees, mostly from eastern Anatolia, particularly Mush and Bitlis, where, under the protection of fedayee forces lead by Ruben Ter Minassian, they had managed to resist the Turkish assault and escape to the Caucasus. Some refugees stayed in Zangezur, but Ter Minassian, a former member of the Armenian national council, ordered the transfer of many of them to the Erivan and Daralgiaz regions, where they replaced evicted Muslims in a move to ethnically homogenize key areas of the Armenian state. One of the fedayees accurately described this as ethnic cleansing, and the parallels to the settlement of muhajirs at Armenian expense in the late Ottoman empire are obvious.

And I don't see how Kurds are relevant here. They were deported by Stalin from all 3 South Caucasus republics. The decision was clearly made in Moscow, and not locally. How could Armenia be a haven for Kurds, when all of them were exiled to Kazakhstan in 1940s? And those who returned were ethnically cleansed from the “haven” in Armenia in 1980s and found refuge in Azerbaijan, where they supposedly are "discriminated". This defies logic. Grandmaster 23:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, why are you quoting this, since I am not claiming it did not happen. What I wrote is that what happened was that both killed eachothers and evicted eachothers, that's supported by the author you have cited, see the end of his intro.

On the various Tukish advances into the Caucasus, the power equation was decidedly in Azerbaijan's favour, and Armenians suffered accordingly, but there is no doubt that extensive atrocities were committed on all sides, and according to the same rationales.

Then he proceed with what you have quoted. Also,volunteer battalions and Turkish-Armenian 'self-defense' operations, the Armenian government was not implicated, from Taner Akcam book: The hero of the Turkish Armenians was persona non grata and would be disarmed if he entered the bounds of the Republic. That both were implicated is also supported by Turkish sources of the time, one that Taner Akcam cite in the section devoted to the Caucasus, from Yusuf Kemal Tengirsenk, the foreign minister of the Ankara government:

...The two sides are murdering one another. This, unfortunitly, is a common practice in both countries.

Also, Armenian Army corps commander Nazarbekoff claimed that Antranik was beyond the reach of the Armenian government. Fact is that unless we're refering to 1947-51, and that can have it's article, this article is the authors synthesis by excluding the other sides tragedy; but for the rest, what happened, happened to both sides, but this article singles one group and use a controversial claim of deportation. From De Waal, p. 127

In Nakhichevan, the westernmost, Azerbaijan consolidated control that year, with Turkish support, driving out thousands of Armenians.

Regarding the Kurds, there are more than 40,000 Yezidi Kurds in Armenia, and yes Armenia was a safe haven for them, that's what the report is claiming, did you take the time to read it?

In sum both Yezidis and Muslim Kurds found a relative haven in Soviet Armenia, which proved to be a focal point for the Soviet Kurdish community. For Muslim Kurds, however, this haven came to an abrupt end with the onset of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and displacement to Azerbaijan.

They had schools, publications, a theatre etc., none of those in Azerbaijan. The claim of homogenization does not stick when considering how the Kurds were treated. Also, many of the Kurds left for Russia and not Azerbaijan, and they had no choice, because besides Armenia there is no haven for them to choose from. JediXmaster (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no source to support the claim that Armenians were systematically cleansed from Azerbaijan. It is not true anyway, because until the start of the conflict in 1988 there were large Armenian communities all over Azerbaijan. The situation with Azeris in Armenia was quite different. These people were systematically driven out of the country under various pretexts at various times throughout the 20th century. It is not just my opinion, this is what de Waal writes, and he is an acknowledged expert on the region. As for the Kurds, I don't see what they have to do with displacement of Azeris. The only thing that connects them to Azeris is that Muslim Kurds shared the same fate with Azeris, and vast majority of them found refuge in Azerbaijan, where they are "discriminated". It makes no sense to run from a safe haven to a place where one would be discriminated, does it? That is clearly illogical. And Kurds were deported from Armenia not once, but twice, first by orders of Stalin, and second time by the Armenian nationalist forces. So situation with Kurdish minority in Armenia was far from idyllic, they were under the constant threat of deportation, by Soviet or Armenian authorities. Grandmaster 09:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you are arguing about, even De Waal claims Armenians were driven out from Nakhichevan. The only event which was different was the resettlement of 1948-51. Had there been no 1948-51, per capita excluding NK, there would have been as much Azeri in Armenia as there were Armenians in Azerbaijan. As for the Kurds, you have no case to stand on, call it illogical, it is sourced, you can't dismiss the report and the armada of sources which can be provided. JediXmaster (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge 1918-1920, 1940-1950s, late 1980s were periods of large demographic changes, don't act like it effected Azerbaijanis only. Ossetians were expelled from Georgia, Georgians were expelled from Abkhazia, Azerbaijanis were expelled from Armenia, Karabakh, Armenians expelled from Azerbaijan, Russians, Slavs, Armenians were expelled from Chechnya. Where are the Armenians of Shamakh, Ganja, Baku, Symgait, Shaki, Nakhichevan? I have to agree with Marshal. The expulsion of Armenians from Azerbaijan is described in Armenians in Azerbaijan and Armenians in Nakhchivan articles. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve -- This is far from an ideal article, in that it is written from the Azeri point of view. There have been similar expulsions in other directions. includinmg Armenians from Azerbaijan. I understood tha tthe ethnicity was Azeri and the nationality Azerbaijani. This suggests amending the ethnic description of non-Azerbaijani Azeris in the article. I would have preferred to have a general article on ethnic segregation in ther Caucasus, with articles on individual incidents on each of the periods of deportation, cvoering what all sides did. With the wealthy of sources, this cannot be called WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - irrelevant article with intention to create confusion? Jarjaris (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Jarjaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree with Parishan. --Esc2003 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: It would be great to have more opinions from users who are not ethnic Armenians nor Azeri, and who were not involved in the ethnic conflicts in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve -- This is not an ideal article and no one claims that it is so. The article needs some improvements as many articles in Wikipedia. As Wikipedia editors our duty is to help to improve the articles, but not to delete one which quite well sourced. All editors are free to make their edits with respective sources (and after getting consensus, if needed). Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia contain some amount of information in common with each another. But one who reads can see that the articles are about completely different topics even they are related: WP:RELAR. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Peterkingiron, there are yet to be an unbiased vote. His keep and improve was far from being yours. As he is suggesting to broaden the article to include both sides. Jedi Master 01:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, all editors are free to make their edits with respective sources. If there are alternative views (with the reliable sources) on the events that occurred, feel free to add them. Or create an article to show deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as you wish. Or even merge the both articles. Still better solution than deleting a well-sourced article, reasoning it with the fact that there is some shared information with another article (which is, in fact, not a violation of Wikipedia policies). Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Parishan.--Urek Meniashvili (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a difficult decision. The article as it stands appears to be unbalanced in a way that favors an Azeri perspective. This, I hope, can be corrected through editing, although I think there may be a more fundamental POV conundrum at work here: one could argue that the very existence of the article constitutes a POV violation. If one were looking at it from the Armenian side, one could argue that the idea of a systemic, planned deportation of Azerbaijanis across different eras of the 20th century is an Azeri construct. Thus, the Armenian could argue, the article's very existence gives credence to the Azeri perspective at the expense of the Armenian one. I think we can put to rest this concern, however, by pointing to the first quote above from Grandmaster from Thomas de Waal, which seems to show that the subject has been covered as a cohesive unit. A cursory check seems to show de Waal is a relatively reliable source, even if he has been criticized by Armenian partisans. There appears to be enough above to show significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. The article should be improved to give a more neutral perspective on the subject and the events surrounding it. Cover the controversy, in other words, instead of pushing perspectives. --Batard0 (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Mennillo[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above assuming that the NSL was not fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Th3 art 0f hackin9[edit]

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

Sources do not mention the subject of the article, which appears to be a company, rather than an endorsed project. Scottyoak2 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; content is exceedingly promotional and non-subjective, and the subject is of questionable notability. If deletion is not decided, a move is required to "The art of hacking", as per articles such as Seven (film), where WP:COMMONNAME may reflect on the title not being "Ththree art zero hackinnine", and on search results. drewmunn talk 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D31373 - Is it my imagination, or did none of the references in the article even mention "the art 0f hackin9"? I can find no coverage about this project, and even the NDS link (ref #1) doesn't mention it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; None of the referenced sources mention the subject of the article, or establish notability. WP:COMPANY is not satisfied. The article itself has little information about the subject of the article (the company), while generally focusing on promoting a perceived need for the company's services. Much of the content is paraphrased or copy-and-pasted from the references or from http://www.artofhacking.info/ and then tweaked with a few synonyms. WP:PARAPHRASE WP:COPYPASTE apply. Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:17, 31 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 article speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kashif Sohail[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. The article may make enough claim of awards to prevent speedy deletion under A7, but it has no references. And I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. —teb728 t c 09:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's also an autobiography. Eeekster (talk) 09:08, 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 redirect to Tompkins_Square_Park#Tompkins_Square_Dog_Run. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkins First Run[edit]

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

I PROD'd this with the reason 'non-notable dog park' because the only source I could find was this. It was de-PRODed and so now we're here, as my concern still stands. It may be good for a merge into Dog park or Manhattan simply based on that article, but otherwise I'm not seeing any indication it's notable. TKK ^{bark !} 12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't seem to have sufficient independent coverage to warrant an article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tompkins Square Park which already covers it. Not really significant or notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kakade[edit]

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

Even in its original version, this article was an assemblage - by a subsequently topic banned contributor - of passing mentions based on the assumption that people bearing the name Kakade must be of the same clan. While caste endogamy might justify this to some degree in Real Life, on Wikipedia the consensus is that making such connections are original research. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this clan as a clan nor can I find any such sources that discuss it as a last name/surname. It fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I am not sure if it really exists, or if so, if it's notable. However, if it were redirected or merged, then merge into Maratha clan system. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 23 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) 05:13, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Theodore Chistovsky[edit]

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

Non-notable priest; I can't find any mentions of him under either name in google, and the page linked to in the article appears to be a blog. TKK ^{bark !} 23:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 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) 05:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Book, News, Scholar, or Google hits at all. -- 202.124.88.4 (talk) 12:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Pappas[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of importance. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a general and the Legion of Merit is not a high enough honour to justify automatic inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILBIO and WP:OUTCOMES. Officers below the rank of major general or rear admiral are rarely automatically notable, and there is no such allegation of notability here. Sometimes, a brigadier general can be notable if he had independent notability, for example Zachary Taylor, Noel F. Parrish, Frank E. Petersen, or Sherian Cadoria; likewise, a "first" for a major could be notable (e.g, Shawna Rochelle Kimbrell). If he had a notable relative, we could merge his bio into theirs, cf. Roderick Wetherill, Jr.. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In actual fact, under WP:SOLDIER all general and flag officers are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 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.