Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 18 (Sat) May 17 (Fri) May 16 (Thu) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 10 June	12 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Birds[edit]

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

Subject appears to lack notability WP:MUSIC and has no sources listed. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaggle (band)#Singles as there is no indication this song is notable for a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaggle (band)#Singles , Per Whpq's logic. Finnegas (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaggle (band)#Singles - no supporting information, no indication the single is notable apart from the album. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:12, 13 June 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Notability has been demonstrated and the article is to be re-written. — sparklism ^hey! 07:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaggle (band)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BAND. No WP:RS sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject clearly passes WP:BAND. Plenty of WP:RS sources exist, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD Nom At request of Violetcries for article rewrite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article rewrite may take a while -- Violetcries (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I tagged the article so people will know it's going to be rewritten. Just don't forget about it. ;-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Johnson (filmmaker)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Article was deleted by PROD and then restored due to an e-mail request. But it still suffers from the same lack of notability and unreliable sourcing. I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Article reads like WP:ARTSPAM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the deleting/restoring Admin: I have asked the user who e-mailed me to improve the article, saying it had been deleted originally due to notability concerns. Giant Snowman 11:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The best reliable sources mention him in conjunction with the Youtube time Machine, but does not provide any other information. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Albert Goodwill Walker[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources. Article was deleted after an expired PROD, but immediately re-created several days ago, but no sources are forthcoming. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Looking for online sources, but many are not archived.Did find some references that reflect Mr. WalkerAlmightyMac (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about him. He is a founder of the AOANS, but that claim is unverified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly enough information about him to suggest that a valid notability claim might be possible here, but none of it is properly sourced: there's one profile of him on the website of his own company (failing WP:PRIMARYSOURCES), one directory listing which verifies the fact that a park named after him exists but which provides no substantial information about him or the park (failing the requirement of substantial coverage), one link to Google Maps and one magazine which links merely to the splash page and not to any actual content about him in that magazine. So while I'm willing to reconsider if better sources start showing up, in its current state this is a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added articles that I have dig up at the Nova Scotia archive and post the PDFs online. http://www.paramedicsociety.com/?page_id=115 I had only gone through a couple of years and it will take time to profile his life. AlmightyMac (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Assassin's Creed#Future. All agree that this doesn't merit an article (yet), the dispute is about whether to merge/redirect anything to Assassin's Creed#Future. There is no consensus about this, but because the title is mentioned in reliable sources such as [10], I can't find that core policy such as WP:V mandates deletion, and consequently I'm closing this as redirect as a variant of the "no consensus, default to keep" outcome. Editorial consensus must determine what if anything to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix[edit]

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

Violates Crystal Ball especially 5. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." This is all that's in the article. Just rumors. Ubisoft's E3 press conference has come and gone with no announcement. This is just a rumor that doesn't even deserve to be merged. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm the page creator, and I'm embarrassed. Seemed like a good idea at the time, and sources were everywhere, but since then there has been nothing, so I support deletion. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 per above. Ansh666 01:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Facepalm per below. I just read CSD so I'm on autopilot I guess. Merge/Redirect per Tokyogirl, to be recreated when the game is released or becomes a prime example of vaporware. Ansh666 04:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Assassin's_Creed#Future. Does this deserve its own article? No, not yet. However, there are just enough mentions of this in RS to where I'd say that it would merit a mention in the "Future" section of the main AC article. Since this would be a valid enough search term, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that we merge some of the information (just a sentence or two would be enough) and redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this merits a redirect. Also, the future section isn't appropriate and a new section called possible releases or something is a better place, but that's not important right now and can be discussed if redirect is chosen. The pressing issue is this is a rumour. Rumours don't belong on wikipedia anywhere (as per Crystal Ball). I would have afd this before but gave until E3 as it was a few days away and could get recreated. E3 conferences as come and gone and no word. I'm not saying that this game may not be true. I'm saying that there's not real evidence of it's existence. It's just a rumour. If and when Ubisoft makes a press release it can be recreated.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources point to rumours, not actually being a press release from Ubisoft or their partners/developers/publishers. It might be worth a mention in Assassin's_Creed#Future, but for now, it seems all speculation. I wouldn't even redirect it. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, until the game is released (and meets WP:GNG). No need for embarrassment :-). Miniapolis 15:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Original result was delete, and it failed to be deleted. So speedy. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mazan Moslehe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The three appearances for Kapfenberger SV in the infobox are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. --MicroX (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The statistics are misleading since he only spent one season with Kapfenberger and never played in the Austrian Bundesliga. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell the league tier this player's team is in hasn't been fully professional for the time of his tenure so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Zad68 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 23356[edit]

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

I don't think this meets any of the criteria of WP:NASTRO. Although Google Scholar hits do turn up, they are purely incidental and only mention the star in passing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a prototypical example of the "being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties" clause of WP:NASTRO. Like the nominator, I could not find any non-incidental coverage of this star. I don't think 46ly is close enough to be interesting for its closeness, it's somewhat out of range of the "visible to the naked eye" clause, and its BD catalogue number doesn't give it an early enough provenance for the pre-1850 clause. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the star gets brief mentions in a few papers, but there's not the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Included in lots of surveys of nearby late-type dwarf stars, its SIMBAD search (here) gives 54 references ... all to big survey papers in this this star is one of hundreds, or one of hundreds of comparison objects. If there was anything notable about it (and V = 7.1 doesn't make the definitional bright star cut), it would have turned up there. BSVulturis (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NASTRO as noted, not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Zad68 20:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Fails all notability guidelines, including WP:NASTRO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond County Courthouse[edit]

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

There is only one relevant entry in this disambiguation page. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded it with two more. They are red links, so the dab might be moved to Richmond County Courthouse (disambiguation) and the Richmond County Courthouse (Staten Island, New York) article moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets MOS:D guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. L Faraone 03:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on Artificial General Intelligence[edit]

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

Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of GHITS for "Conference on Artificial General Intelligence", but of those that I have found, they're either unrelated to this conference, are primary sources, or are unreliable ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of non-notability is bogus because the user's search was weak. There are hundreds of hits on scholar.google.com, with links to papers on arXiv.org and dozens of Universities, video record of this conference taking place at Google and other other locations. What more is needed, a star on Hollywood Boulevard? sydhart (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found plenty of GHITS with this term. I couldn't find anything third-party on this conference - there are a hell of a lot of hits that come up for all sorts of random things. As I stated in the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, I don't catch your meaning... "this conference" seems to be an annual event, held in different places. I don't see any search hits that mention a conference other than the one described by the article. At the same time, it seems oddly difficult to find news (or scholarly articles) that discuss the conference rather than simply citing papers from it. Dhart, can you provide some direct links to articles that might be useful? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of third party references in the GHITs that report on past and future conferences (and that's just links in the first 3 pages of results!). It's actually disingenious to claim othrewise, and a waste of everyone's time. Why didn't the user link to the GHITs in the in first place? I'd say this nomination is a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhart (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: groupuscule, I agree with your synopsis that the references that Luke is finding are generally referring to the same event, and on that note I would normally Speedy Keep. But as Luke points out, the NOTEability of the Conference seems low. Dhart, the links you provide are all those of the conference's own press releases or publications, and do not meet NOTE. That is what Luke said in the nom, so I'd recommend AGF.
That said, I did find several NOTEable references in H+ magazine, real articles written by a 3rd party about the topic. But that's only one source, I'd like to see more to be worthy of an outright keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came to the same conclusion: that H+ article is only high-quality source so far. Then I look to see who H+ is, and find that it's the magazine for "Humanity+". Ben Goertzel, the author of the article, is also the Vice Chair of Humanity+ ... and the "general Chair of the Artificial General Intelligence conference series"! So actually, we can't consider this source independent either.
Now, my intuition is that this a notable conference, and I'm really not itching to delete. But DHart, I feel like you're not making great strides by linking a bunch of blog posts from within the organization and describing them as "plenty of third party references". Forget "plenty"—can you focus on finding one or two high-quality independent reports? Frankly I'm surprised we haven't found these yet (I've looked too) since it does seem to be an interesting conference that's been held a number of times. groupuscule (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try a variation on GHITs. Many 3rd party accounts, particularly in blogs. sydhart (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't satisfy WP:RS 95% of the time. I'm struggling to see RS in your other link as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there *are* reliable sources, plenty of them (see the Google Scholar link again), also many hours of conference presentations and interviews of speakers and attendees on YouTube, Vimeo, etc., so this nomination is about some subjective standard of 'how many' and 'how reliable' you think they are? What's the standard? Articles in the Wall Steet Journal and video from the CBS Evening News? That would make a pretty odd standard for an academic conference. The conference is *certainly notable* within its field, particularly given the noteriety of many of the speakers and attendees. For example, the *director of research* of Google gave the opening remarks at AGI-11 (he's also the man who literally 'wrote the book', a nearly univerally used unergraduate AI textbook); follow many of the other speaker links to find other people of noteriety in the field. An academic conference is just not the sort of thing that will make the mainstream press. Academic citations are the primary method of establishing both reliability and notability within the field, and I believe that is the standard that should apply here. dhart (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. Vimeo is not a reliable source. It would be nice if you could actually link some examples of in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this conference/set of conferences in 3rd-party reliable sources here, without constantly attacking me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dhart, the problem here is that these arent 3rd party reports, they're simply people re-publishing the conference's own reports. A book listing on Amazon is not an RS, a book review on Amazon may be. To date all that I see that it really someone else writing about it is the H+ articles. So keep looking for more examples of that sort. As I said, I lean towards keep and am willing to be easily swayed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there are many ways to meet WP:GNG and we should be careful that an over-emphasis is not placed on 3rd party media reports when there's an abundance of other evidence (video and photographic records and indepentently cited published papers). I understand that 3rd party reports are important to verifying most articles, but not every article fits into the class where 3rd party reports are the best method of verification. At an academic conference, people show up, present their work to each other (there's a solid record of that), talk a lot, go away and do research (there's a solid record of that), then come back to subsequent conferences to reconnect, and the conference grows. It's not unusual for academic conferences to receive no 3rd party report type coverage, because science is generally done through peer review rather than through media reporting. For example, all of the papers in the published proceedings of the conference, published by the committee on behalf of all of the submitters for the benefit of all researchers in the field, as well as all of the presentations, go through a peer review process which is why citations to those papers can be found in other papers indepenent of the conference and published in major 3rd-party journals (independent journals reject papers with non-peer-reviewed citiations, whether reviewed by other journals' editorial committees or conference committees). My argument is that those citations should satisfy WP:RS. dhart (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the idea that the conference is notable because there are so many primary sources. I really want to agree with you, but I don't think it would be fair to include the AGI conf, on the strength of primary sources, when we exclude so many other events which lack the shiny futuristic glow of AGI. Like, there was a big debate about the article on Feminist Africa, which is a peer reviewed journal with abundant secondary literature! OTOH I do like with your idea that if an institution has valid practices we might accept it on those grounds, rather than appealing to fame. I think this idea deserves broader community discussion. In the meanwhile, it would be great if we could just ... find some independent sources ... somewhere ... :-) groupuscule (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a reference to a co-confrerence held with AGI-12@Oxford last year on AGI safety and impacts. Since the AGI conference series itself is highly technical, the track on safety & impacts is the one more likely to receive any kind of media coverage. dhart (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also an interview reference published at the IEET that explains the context of one of the AGI-12 interviews. dhart (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ICA source is about a different conference, although it is related, and the IEET source seems like a primary one, although feel free to correct me about that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joint conference, same location, same tickeing, same people, and the ICA source directly references the AGI conference series by name. How is IEET a primary source? The interviewer interviewed many people at the conference, but he was not affiliated with the conference. dhart (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I now agree that the IEET one isn't primary, but the ICA source is still about a different conference, regardless of how related they are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - like some of those above, I found plenty of sources, many of them "significant coverage", but few of them independent of the subject. I suppose that's to be expected for a conference like this - who else is going to write about it but those who spoke, attended or are otherwise interested in the subject? This, for example is a good source that provides more than significant coverage in a magazine not specifically connected to the conference. But, as was pointed out above, it's written by Ben Goertzel who has spoken at a couple of the conferences (though he only co-presented at the one he writes about in that article) and is now listed as an organiser. There's also industry-style coverage (like this) in publications like New Scientist. Then there's blog stuff like this from Robert M Wenzel who seems sufficiently well-respected for his blog to perhaps be a reliable source, with footnotes and everything. The New Scientist style stuff is probably the most convincing. I'm maybe not entirely there but I think there's just enough for me. Open to being convinced either way. Stalwart111 02:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lot of little cites and independent cites.[11][12] Produces its own works.[13] And its awards have some recognition.[14] Though it is an industry event, it seems to be used as a way to introduce papers and share research. Seems that it could end up meeting GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 8 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Kuwait[edit]

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

non notable mall that was planned but never built. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The mall never entered any type of construction as the article says. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn. L Faraone 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salaf in favor of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad[edit]

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

Seems to be an indiscriminate list which violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE; even as a category, this would be suspect. The fact that it also quotes from numerous primary source material appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV; the intent seems to be to push a certain opinion regarding Nikah mut'ah. One of the many creations of User:Striver, whose similar random articles on hadith have previously been deleted for similar reasons. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per User_talk:MezzoMezzo#Deletion_of_the_articles_related_to_Mut.27ah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to push the OR rather heavily and the usage of primary sources is easy to abuse. Since nothing will be left in this case, it is best to delete. Secondary sources are required for interpreting and discussing such controversial matters. Editors should not fulfill this role. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the hadith is an important tradition and hence an article relating to it is warranted. If anything is required is improving the article and adding more citations.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:34, 11 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move I think we can find better and more NPOV title which include both supporting and opposing cases and add more information about the scholars viewpoints. This can be a sub-article of Nikah Mut'ah. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query The problem isn't just the title, though; the whole article is original research. I tried searching and I can't find anything reliable, nor can I find anything at all indicating the notability or any other justification for such a list. But by sub-article, what are you suggesting? I don't follow but it might be a better resolution, so could you elaborate on whether you mean a separate, standalone list or some sort of category or something else? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can make an article on Hadith related to Mut'ah and merge and redirect all of such articles to it. The problem of reliability can be solved in the talk page of that article better than a AfD.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see what you're saying now. Do you suggest that I retract the AfD nominations? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah (3rd nomination)

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

I'm really not sure why a consensus wasn't achieved on the last AfD; I read it, but it just boggles the mind. Firstly, it's a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as even as a category, what's the purpose for including articles on individual hadith? Secondly, this list fails WP:GNG, as the topic specifically of hadith in regard to nikah fails WP:SIGCOV. I'm not talking about nikah itself; I'm talking about the topic of hadith in regard to nikah. Thirdly, there are only two sources, both of which are primary sources and the first one doesn't even specify page numbers! On top of that, hadith articles created by Striver have a history of being deleted en masse.

Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per User_talk:MezzoMezzo#Deletion_of_the_articles_related_to_Mut.27ah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unnecessary content fork of Nikah mut‘ah. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the hadith is an important tradition and hence an article relating to it is warranted. If anything is required is improving the article and adding more citations. It should also be noted that result of last AFDs have been negative:

keep, AFD #1, 19 July, 2005.
No Consensus, AFD #2, 14 September 2006.

Query What makes the hadith important? There isn't any scholarly coverage from reliable sources; it's just a link to answering-ansar, a blatantly non-RS source due to it's nature as a Shi'ite missionary website, and some primary sources which the creator obviously used in an attempt to push a certain POV. If reliable sources can be found establishing the notability of these individual ahadith then I wouldn't raise such an issue, but I tried and this clearly isn't a notable subject in and of itself. And as I mentioned elsewhere, per WP:OUTCOMES I don't see why this should be different from all the other hadith articles that were deleted. I'm not saying I won't budge on this; I'm just saying that, as of now, based on my attempts to find coverage and review of previous outcomes, I see this as a non-notable subject with an article based on OR and promoting a certain view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can keep this article as the main article and merge the other cases which are nominated for deletion such as Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain to this one.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn. L Faraone 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain[edit]

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

Of the sixteen (technically seventeen) sources cited, three of them lead to highly partisan websites pushing a sectarian POV - two to al-islam and one to answering-ansar. Both fail WP:RS without a shadow of a doubt. The rest all lead to primary sources, many of which are cited improperly and at least one of which (I own a copy) appears to be a blatant forgery. The hadith itself does not possess enough coverage outside of Sunni-Shi'ite debate sites to pass WP:GNG, and the creation of this article itself seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV due to intent. This is, unfortunately, a recurring problem with articles on hadith created by User:Striver.

Withdrawn by nominator per User_talk:MezzoMezzo#Deletion_of_the_articles_related_to_Mut.27ah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I think this was a good attempt, but the OR and POV issues are rather concerning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the hadith is an important tradition and hence an article relating to it is warranted. If anything is required is improving the article and adding more citations. Also, the AFD details al-islam and answering-ansar "highly partisan websites pushing a sectarian POV" but discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83#www.al-islam.org puts al-islam as relaible one also it has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress and so it can't be considered as an unreliable source.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link your provided for the discussion doesn't seem to include any sort of binding resolution regarding the website; despite it being quoted by other sources, I still allege that it fails RS per Wikipedia:Irs#Questionable_sources; it is a questionable source as it is clearly promotional in nature, in addition to the veracity of many of its claims being contested by rival Sunni websites. The resolution, in that case, would be to discount both this site and any rival Sunni sites like Ansar or sonsofsunnah except to present the views of that website itself. Beyond that, those two sources, even if reliable, can hardly support the notability of this hadith; I didn't find any mainstream scholarly coverage, thus it fails WP:SIGCOV. That isn't surprising because again, as I said, this is another example of Striver's original research. Per WP:OUTCOMES, I don't see why this case should be any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 15 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We can merge this article and the other similar articles to Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bystander Theory[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is obviously a real movie that is not a promotion, and this is a featured film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostboy1997 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:NFF. Ansh666 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage is the Lights, Camera, Austin piece. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NFF. The film topic is not ready now, but as this is to release in 2013, we can place the article some place where it might benefit from collaborative editing until ready for a return to article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate. Regardless, it's not yet notable enough for article space. Andrew³²⁷ 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL, or incubate per MichaelQSchmidt's and Andrew's arguments. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. We get a variety of opinions, and two references were added during the nomination time, however, the opinions range from very weak keep to delete, with delete getting the last votes (i.e. voters who have seen the changes in the articles and were familiar with the previous arguments), and nobody argued the notability has beed demonstrated. The argument by DGG for me sums the whole discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Life[edit]

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

Created in 2010 but has no references, does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:VERIFY. Flat Out Let's discuss it 13:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. And let Richard Templar be the next Afd. He is a nobody too. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article claims the book is an international bestseller, which would make it notable if that can be substantiated. Meanwhile, I've added one cite, a review in an RS newspaper. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any evidence that the book is an international bestseller. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author's page. No need for standalone article, does not meet GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 8 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As weak a keep as they get - this technically passes a ghost of a whisper of WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmistakable clear delete--only 39 library copies according to worldcat. Libraries freely buy this sort of self-help book when they are of any importance at all. I agree that the author p. should probably go to afd also. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits. I don't think we can make a case for notability here. That said, the author's page is concerning as well, so I don't know if a merge would be appropriate either. WP:USUAL might apply to the author, but it is unlikely that a three-year-old self-help book will get additional notice or sourcing in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of St Thomas[edit]

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

This article is a POV content fork of Thomas the Apostle, which has been fully protected from editing due to content disputes and edit warring going back several years. (See Talk:Thomas the Apostle, User talk:Vena Varcas and this diff for more info.) After the article was protected, User:Jijithnr proceeded to create Historical St Thomas, which was speedy deleted by User:INeverCry. Article creator represents hamsa.org and tries again by creating Historicity of St Thomas, which is another POV content fork, same content forked, but declined A10 (which I find slightly amusing and puzzling at the same time). I'm not interested in the religious dogma, but would rather focus on the issues pertaining to Wikipedia, i.e., policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Cindy(talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the POV of Thomas_the_Apostle page. It violates all historical information available about St.Thomas and is written in a way to facilitate religious conversion of Hindus into Christianity. A large number of scholars, Christians and non-Christians had written about the false propaganda that St. Thomas visited India, especially a place called Mylapore near Chennai in South India. Hindus are forced to bear the blame that St. Thomas was killed by a Hindu Brahmin where as the Acts of Thomas make it clear to anybody that St. Thomas was executed by a Zoroastrian king describes as Mazdai (a worshiper of Ahura Mazda). The place names and names of people mentioned in the acts is clearly Iranian and Indo-Parthian, with no resemblance to south India or Tamil or Sanskrit. Despite my attempts to bring a balance in the article, the admins of this page is adamant with thier biased writing. This situation demands that a new article about St Thomas, which is historically more accurate needs to be created. Invest some time in assessing the historicity of St Thomas before deleting the article on Historicity of St Thomas. There is a growing perception that Wikipedia is a pro-Christian, anti-Pagan, anti-Hindu encyclopedia. The actions of many of its editors who abuse various rules, exceptions and excuses of Wikipedia to protect pro-Christian pages and to delete any page that shows a non Christian pont of view, only strengthens this perception. I am an editor in Wikipedia for more than 7 years. It saddens me to see that the value of Wikipedia is eroding fast. Especially the pages dealing with history and religion are heavily biased. 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Jijithnr (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Jijithnr (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly written WP:POVFORK. Indeed, the main article author admits above that this article is a WP:POVFORK. Any issues with Thomas the Apostle should be handled using the standard conflict resolution processes, not by forking new articles. -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard conflict resolution processes has failed miserably as this issue is ongoing since 2008 and it is debated in various online forums, eroding the authenticity and neutrality of Wikipedia. There are other solutions than deleting such as merging the content of this page with Thomas_the_Apostle page. Merging the content is less polarizing than hard inclusion or hard deletion. This will bring some balance in the point of view of the Thomas_the_Apostle page which is currently writen as absolute history where as it reflect only one of the many traditions about St. Thomas's martyrdom. Otherwise, let there be two articles, one focusing on the historicity of St.Thomas (Historicity_of_St_Thomas) and another (Thomas_the_Apostle) focusing on the dominant Christian tradition. Let then it be explicitly stated in the Thomas_the_Apostle page that the contents in it are based on the dominant Christian tradition and shall not be mistaken for history. This is a very sensible solution and I have found similar solutions working with many other articles of conflicting interest in Wikipedia in my 7 years of experience with Wikipedia editing. This solution is based on mutual respect and should be acceptable to many editors. I am ready to improve the Historicity_of_St_Thomas article further so that no content in Thomas_the_Apostle page is repeated in it and improve it further to meet all Wikipedia standards. Irrespective of whether this article is deleted or not, "Historicity of St.Thomas" and "Apostle Thomas of Christian tradition" are two different topics or sub-topic of some main article and they deserve separate existence as two different articles or as sub-articles of a main article. Jijithnr (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POVFORK. Forking articles because one can't sway consensus on the original page should not to be encouraged by forcing a merge. Rather, this needs to be resolved on the original St. Thomas page and the duplicate article needs to be eliminated. This article isn't even about the historicity of St. Thomas anyhow - it is just an alternative biography. Agricolae (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - misleadingly titled POVFORK. Ansh666 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To make myself more clear: This article, as a topic, is fine. This article, as it currently stands, is not. It is a mess of a single POV and much irrelevant info used to further said POV instead of actually discussing in a neutral manner the actual historicity of Thomas the Apostle. As such, I suggest a WP:TNT deletion, for someone down the line who has an interest in writing about the matter. Ansh666 06:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I welcome the suggestion of Ansh666 about rewriting the article by more competent editors, but I disagree with him about this being a single POV. This view is held by more than a dozen of authentic scholars, most of them Christians themselves and the Gnostic texts and other archives of the Church history are replete with similar views. They are as old as Christianity itself going back to as old as 2nd Century. In fact, had not this article was tagged for speedy deletion within 5 minutes (!!!) of its creation, I myself could have improved the article further, by exploring further into those archives, satisfying the likes of Ansh666 who seek for better historicity. Regarding the historicity of St. Thomas, scholary openion is divided, with some scholars arguing that he had not preached anywhere beyond Syria and that all the travels of St.Thomas beyond Syria were the imaginative work of the auther of the Acts of Thomas, viz. Bardaisan himself, who got information about the geography and kings of the east and India from the discussions he had with Buddhist monks who travelled from India to Syria. Porphyry states that on one occasion at Edessa, Bardaisan interviewed an Indian deputation of holy men (designated as Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas) who had been sent to the Roman emperor Elagabalus or another Severan dynasty Roman Emperor, and questioned them as to the nature of Indian religion. The encounter is described in Porphyry http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Porphyry2.html Jijithnr (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be the only one who thinks this is worth having, mate. My condolences. Ansh666 06:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the page is sufficiently distinct to be considered as a page of its own and cannot be considered as a POVFORK. All the information in the article is sourced and substantiated by references. Any one can look at the content of the page and delete any information not supported by references, rather than deleting the page altogather. I also request those who are in favor of deleting the article to take responsibility to preserve the following points which I strangely find Wikipedia is refusing to admit in any articles it has hosted. I do not blame any individual editor for this strange phenomenon but it raise suspicion to the over all neutrality of its collective Wikipedian editor community. The points are:-

The Acts of Thomas, (http://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm) makes it very clear that the domain of activity of Thomas was not South India but Indo-Parthia, which is now part of Pakistan. Hence accusing Hindus that a Hindu Brahmana killed St.Thomas in Mylapore, near Chennai in South India is plain wrong. It is un-historical as well as an unnecessary insult to Hinduism, which has given asylum to Christians persecuted in Iran under Zoroastrian kings.
Judas Thomas (St. Thomas), as per the Acts of Thomas, was the brother of Jesus and his appearance was very similar to that of Jesus to the point that people can mistake him for Jesus. Refer satetment from Act of Thomas Chapter 1:- And he saw the Lord Jesus bearing the likeness of Judas Thomas. Refer satetment from Act of Thomas Chapter 1:- Lord said to him: I am not Judas which is also called Thomas but I am his brother.
Judas Thomas (St. Thomas) was sold as a slave to an Indian merchant Abbanes, by Jesus himself, according to the Acts of Thomas. Refer satetment from Act of Thomas Chapter 1:- I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians.
It is acceptable to consider St.Thomas's visit to South India and his martyrdom in Mylapore Chennai as a very popular Christian belief (but not as History) and it must be presented with similar tradition of St.Thomas visit and martyrdom in other places like Brazil.

In the event of deleting this article (Historicity of St Thomas), these above mention points should be presented in some other article or these information should be added to the Thomas the Apostle to make it neutral. This responsibility rest with the editor/editors who are in favor of deleting this article (Historicity of St Thomas). Doing this, will show to everybody that Wikipedia is a neutral entity and not biased in favor of the dominant Christian view and that it can do justice to Hindu, Muslim or Pagan points of views. Jijithnr (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments in response to this, and then I will step away. Your four most important points all address disputed aspects of the biography of Thomas, not the historicity of Thomas. The talk of an insult to Hindus indicates some unsupportable sense of religious collective guilt, and suggests that there may be WP:SOAPBOX motivations. It is not the responsibility of those favoring deletion of a WP:POVFORK to force a new consensus on the original article the fork was created to bypass. It is up to you to bring about a new consensus on the Apostle Thomas page, to address the issue through WP:Dispute resolution, or to accept that the community consensus is not in favor of your position and move on, and if you can't do that, step away. A POVFORK is not the way to go. Agricolae (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jijithnr, I'm sincerely puzzled by your statement above, "The content of the page is sufficiently distinct to be considered as a page of its own and cannot be considered as a POVFORK." Please see this report. How do you explain the identical content used in Historicity of St Thomas? Is it not copied from the Thomas the Apostle article? Do you honestly believe that the two articles are distinct from one another? I can understand your desire to present a biography of Thomas from the viewpoint of other faiths, but this simply is not the way to go about doing so. Cindy(talk) 13:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you find content in (Historicity of St Thomas that is also present in Thomas the Apostle then you can delete them. I have no problem in it on grounds of POV FORK. But if you delete content in Historicity of St Thomas that is not found in Thomas the Apostle and if it is well sourced (I am not making it up, nor is this my original research. It is all there in Christian apocryphal texts) then they must be preserved in some form, either by merging it with Thomas the Apostle page or as a separate article. If you delete this page and fail to do this courtesy, then it means you are using Wikipedia rules as a cover to hide uncomfortable information. You are also helping to spread false information about St.Thomas's arrival and martyrdom in South India. You are thus indirectly helping the Christian missionaries in South India who work for converting unsuspecting Hindus in Christianity. You are saying:-"This is simply not the way". I pray then what is then the way? As many as four years (since 2008) different editors and eminent scholars even with a doctorate degree has pointed to the admins of (Historicity of St Thomas page, to bring a balance into the article. They have not done that. There was two murder attempts upon Ishwar Sharan for showing the Christian Church that they are wrong about St. Thomas's arrival in South India, showing well attested Christian sources. Huge amount of money is spent to implant this legend of St.Thomas arrival and martyrdom into South India inculding by producing a big budget movie. In freelancer.com, a collaborative job portal, jobs are posted to freelancers asking them to work as Wikipedia editors who would write articles in favor of Christianity, defending Christian articles and deleting any article favoring a non-Christian view. When you have hundreds of admins in Wikipedia with strong bias in favor of dominant Christian viewpoint what hope is there to bring other point of views into Wikipedia? . Jijithnr (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant POV fork, packed with fringe "alternative history" (Jesus had a twin brother????????), OR and synth based on primary and unreliable sources, abuse of sources, and a good dose of just plain WTF. Nothing here worth saving or merging. Delete in its entirety, and flush twice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you surprised to know that Jesus had a twin brother? That means you have little knowledge of the ancient Christian texts, especially Gnostic texts and apocryphal texts like Acts of Thomas. These are not some bogus propaganda created by Hindus or Pagans. Go to your nearest Church and ask and they would be able to tell you more about this. Or else make a single Google search and you will get your answer in one second. Here it says:- Refer satetment from Act of Thomas Chapter 1:- And he saw the Lord Jesus bearing the likeness of Judas Thomas. Refer satetment from Act of Thomas Chapter 1:- Lord said to him: I am not Judas which is also called Thomas but I am his brother.04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - basically per Dominus Vobisdu. This is almost entirely original research from someone who just doesn't seem to get that Wikipedia doesn't exist to host his fringe theories. The suggestion that this is somehow a "Hindu, Muslim or Pagan point of view" that needs coverage for balance is not at all supported by reliable sources. Stalwart111 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research since I am just quoting information already present in well recognized Christian web sites containing Gnostic and apocryphal texts. Nor are these fringe theories. These are discussed and written elaborately by more than a dozens of Christian scholars and modern scholars as well. Are you also suggesting that http://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm is not a reliable source? Jijithnr (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well surprise you to learn how many of us here have a pretty good understanding of Gnostic and apocryphal texts. But I digress... you still haven't explained how your mis-titled Historicity of St Thomas is in any way what it claims to be. We already cover Thomas the Apostle at Thomas the Apostle, the Acts of Thomas at Acts of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas at Gospel of Thomas and Saint Thomas Christians at Saint Thomas Christians. Thomas the Apostle already includes most of the information you seem to be trying to present (though badly) including his time in India and historical references to him (that which might actually be considered the Historicity of St Thomas). What you've done is create another article that synthesises various claims together into one large, unwieldy (and frankly unnecessary) mish-mash of original research. Stalwart111 05:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining what Wikipedia calls “the neutral point of view” (or NPOV) is relatively easy when writing about science topics or otherwise objectively verifiable subjects. But in other topics, such as politics, religion and history, bias and controversy inevitably arise. “The neutral point of view is much more of an article of faith in the way Wikipedia is organized than a tested proposition,” - Dr. Shane Greenstein Jijithnr (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not accurate, because at the end of the day all we're doing is regurgitating what reliable sources have said about things. You seem to have decided that certain articles "aren't neutral" because they don't also cover your particular literal interpretation of certain apocryphal texts. Your solution seems to be to create a bunch of articles that present your view, despite the fact that it's a view not support by reliable sources. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Want to blog about religion and ancient texts? Go for it. Want Wikipedia to host your blog? Not going to happen. Stalwart111 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary about a related AFD.
Comment - by the way, I've also nominated the biographies of certain characters whose articles are entirely reliant on text from the Acts of Thomas (Abbanes and Misdaeus) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbanes. A single apocryphal source isn't anywhere near enough to make either character notable. Stalwart111 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Wow! Now you are saying, the Acts of Thomas is not a relaible! If Acts of Thomas is discarded, then what basis is there in the story of Apostle St.Thomas? What basis is then there is for his visit to South India or any where in the world? Do you deny the following statement of Jesus? I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians. If no why? If yes, why can't it deserve a Wikipedia article? Jijithnr (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Where have I suggested it's not reliable? What I suggested was that a single passing mention in an apocryphal text isn't enough to substantiate the notability of a merchant who bought a slave, no matter how notable that slave might or might not have been. We've been having a reasonably nice chat on your talk page but you're jumping all over the place now. Just calm down - I'm happy to keep the conversation going but this is not the place for that, or for an ongoing conversation about another AFD. Stalwart111 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Then keep it as a stub. In fact I have kept the stub tag on the article which some editor skilfully removed. Keep it as a stub until more information about the topic is found. Jijithnr (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary about a related AFD.

Comment - by the way, I've also nominated the biographies of certain characters whose articles are entirely reliant on text from the Acts of Thomas (Abbanes and Misdaeus) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbanes. A single apocryphal source isn't anywhere near enough to make either character notable. Stalwart111 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now you are saying, the Acts of Thomas is not a relaible! If Acts of Thomas is discarded, then what basis is there in the story of Apostle St.Thomas? What basis is then there is for his visit to South India or any where in the world? Do you deny the following statement of Jesus? I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians. If no why? If yes, why can't it deserve a Wikipedia article? Jijithnr (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I suggested it's not reliable? What I suggested was that a single passing mention in an apocryphal text isn't enough to substantiate the notability of a merchant who bought a slave, no matter how notable that slave might or might not have been. We've been having a reasonably nice chat on your talk page but you're jumping all over the place now. Just calm down - I'm happy to keep the conversation going but this is not the place for that, or for an ongoing conversation about another AFD. Stalwart111 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep it as a stub. In fact I have kept the stub tag on the article which some editor skilfully removed. Keep it as a stub until more information about the topic is found. Jijithnr (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious pov fork. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Keech[edit]

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

The subject of this article has requested it be deleted via OTRS (ticket:2012060210001783). As a courtesy, I am filing this request on their behalf.Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia team

Thank you for your email response.

I would like to delete the following Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Keech

The page was originally created in 2007 when I had just started my first film. At the time I was young (18) and was given little time to complete the page after the production company set it up. Since I was only just starting out it was necessary to put in some "filler" information that now, being a full-fledged actress with professional credits, isn't up to standards and needs to be updated to be more professional.

The problem is that a third party (5 Albert Square) has somehow been made 'moderator' of my page and thus, appears to have complete control over what information can and cannot be listed on the page.

I have tried numerous times to edit the page only to have 5-Albert-Square delete my edits and, ultimately, reword my page in a way that paints me in a negative light. For instance, regarding my involvement in the Harry Potter films (I was an extra in films 2, 3, and 4, hired through the casting agency Redroofs) 5-Albert-Square wrote, "She claims she was a part of the Harry Potter film series, as the friend of protagonist Harry Potter in the second, third, and forth installments.[6][citation needed] However, she is not seen in the movie nor is there any proof of her being in the films."

The issue here is that many people, in India especially, look to Wikipedia as a first source when searching for information regarding an individual. These people could be reporters, publicists, people I work with, people I aspire to work with, or fans. Regardless of who it is the majority of them are unaware that what they are reading is subject to the views of an individual who has nothing whatsoever to do with the person being written about. Wikipedia promotes itself as the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" yet, in reality, it appears to be run by a relatively small number of people referred to as 'moderators' who, for some reason, have the ability to overrule all others who may want to contribute.

My point is if someone like this moderator finds information about me, which they believe to be untrue, then why don't they just delete that section instead of writing in such a negative fashion? Now when people go to my Wikipedia page, rather than reading an unbiased account it appears as though I am being called out as a liar. Does this seem right to you?

TO CLARIFY: I was, in fact, an extra in 3 of the Harry Potter films. I was cast and hired through Redroofs Casting in London, England.

It is this negative, distasteful tone on my Wikipedia page that is damaging to my image and why I urge, and have been urging, Wikipedia to step in and do the right thing, which is either to delete this current page or allow me, personally, to be the moderator so that I can clean up the page. I think this is the only way to insure that other moderators, like 5-Albert-Square, don't tarnish someone else's name and work.

If you require proof of identify from me I will happily send that across. I just don't appreciate being permanently blocked from correcting a page that's about me.

Please assist further

Hazel Keech

Keep, if we can source it, it should be kept for negative or for positive details. I will address and clean up the article when I wake up and update my rationale if this changes or it is indeed not notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, she's clearly a notable actress. But Ms Keech is quite right about the implied accusations of fraud; according to WP:BLP they're not appropriate unless some reliable source has specifically accused her of lying about being in Harry Potter (which as far as I can tell none has, and it seems like a perfectly believable claim), so I've deleted that section. 111.192.136.3 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - several individual profile articles in several of India's top national press outlets seems to easily meet the WP:GNG requirements. Previous self promotion or improper BLP phrasings are a reason to keep an eye on the article, but not delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matty.007/vector.js[edit]

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

Author requests deletion Mat ty.007 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an appropriate place to request for deletion - AFD is for articles, not for something like vector.js... みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was not sure how to delete it. Mat ty.007 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boronia Backpackers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. The film exists, but fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I tried seeing if there was enough to put this and its predecessor in one article, but there just isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Nancy[edit]

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

And also this one fails WP:GNG. The director's own article was recently deleted, btw. SarahStierch (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per TOO SOON. The film exists, but fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If I may be frank, this doesn't have a snowball's chance of surviving. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight & Magic[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per TOO SOON. The film exists, but fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swallow[edit]

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

Lacks notability and appears to be an advertisement or resume. References include promotional websites. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still looking ... but ... I found out in an initial search that this guy already would have a good DYK! Apparently, Mark E. Smith of the The Fall (band) included Swallow's name in the lyrics of "A Lot in a Name" appearing on his solo Post Nearly Man album (1998). How's that for AfD trivia? Crtew (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my earlier search: You CAN find sources about Swallow. However, there are a few caveats to the typical "Google search". He has a common name and so you would need to qualify his name with other relevant search terms, such as "presenter" or "Anglia". He did his TV work in the era of the late 1980s and 1990s, which is largely unrecorded by the Internet, and he was a regional TV presenter from the UK. He has also been involved in several TV production companies, such as East Films and One London Media. So you can find sources about him, but I'm not sure what the statement of notability would be. Has anybody from the UK heard of him? Crtew (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is hard for producers, but I don't see any awards or recognition to meet GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 8 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While adequate sourcing exists on this person, it doesn't add up to meet WP:ANYBIO guidelines. Crtew (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talygen[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one source given is a blog entry of three sentences. It does not even say what the sentence with its ref tag says. The article claims there is nothing to download, but if you look on iTunes or Google play, there is indeed a download. The web site does not say mention anything about funding or employees. So who knows, it might be a kid and his buddy trying to do a quickie "app" like everyone else. Not notable yet. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs. SarahStierch (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tulliallan Thistle[edit]

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

Amatuer team - fails WP:NFOOTBALL surely? Gbawden (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the East of Scotland Football League does not have a third division - what league does this team actually play in.............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to reply to the nominator's question: no, a club cannot fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as that notability guideline doesn't cover clubs) and anyway, amateur clubs can be, and indeed are, notable. Giant Snowman 13:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs, no real independent notability. Giant Snowman 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As above. A club with this name did exist and played in the Scottish Junior Cup, 1993–94 for example, but I found nothing to suggest that it does now. What is shown here suggests that a tiny club went out of existence ten years ago. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOTT MT[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, believe it fails WP:BAND Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band with one non-notable release to their name. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was article speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Carrom Club[edit]

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

Unable to find RS on this except site and facebook. Tyros1972 Talk 12:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability per WP:ORG. 1,564 members is pretty big for a country with a population of 328,536 (that's about 0.5% of the population), but per nom we need WP:Reliable sources to confirm this, and you would expect to see a fair level of coverage for the organization if it really was that big. It's part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about organizations that are headed by Ali Mohamed (Maldives). Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if my speedy tag doesn't work... Peridon (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there is another Carrom association in the Maldives (Carrom Association of Maldives) that is part of the Asian Carrom Confederation. I found this out as they were founding members of the International Carrom Federation back in 1988. The author of the article here rewrote that article to imply that Ali Mohamed was a founder in 2012. I've reverted to an older version of the article. Peridon (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are three accounts involved: User:Aminath shafana (author of this article), User:Shafana Aminath (the editor that you just reverted at International Carrom Federation), and the now blocked User:Awesome Carrom Club. Also note that I renamed Ali Mohamed (Maldives) from Ali Mohamed (Awesome), and Dart Association of Maldives (created by User:Aminath shafana) had a personal invitation from Ali Mohamed. Maybe she was quoting him from their brochure or something. But it all smells a bit like socks. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it quacks too... Peridon (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a "fourth" editor contesting deletion in their first edit at Talk:Scrabble Association of Maldives, but I didn't make a note of the username. It will probably turn up if there's an SPI with Checkuser. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, one there quacks too - User:Aminath shima. The other objector was a bit more original - User:Shafiu Ahmed (Rizhath). Peridon (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy as suggested above. One and only source doesn't work (404 not found). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've fixed the EL in the ref: there was some sort of h-like character masquerading as an h. I'm either parading my ignorance of Unicode here, or there's a MediaWiki bug at work. At any rate, it's clickable now. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clickable, yes, thank you. Useless as a notability reference - it's a table of winners in a 2011 tournament. Merely shows existence of the club - as a member of the tournament's organisers, the Carrom Association of Maldives (a redirect to the Asian Confederation). Peridon (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRiSM[edit]

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

Ad - no assertion of notability. Only has one primary source failing WP:GNG . Widefox; talk 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not the current news item PRISM (surveillance program) . I've renamed to Projects integrating sustainable methods , and created redir PRiSM (project management) . Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen there's the company advert too (where someone didn't find a source).. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPM Global Widefox; talk 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No assertion of notability? This methodology is used by the US Navy, the BBC, Cisco, and many organizations. We will work on the neutrality to accomodate the guidelines. Please refer to AGILE, PRINCE2, Waterfall, or SCRUM to see other project methodologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.44.9 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 184.18.44.9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Widefox; talk 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources (meeting GNG) for that I'm happy to withdraw. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for why the other PMs are not relevant. Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of these customers on the vendors website, or customer websites or google. I did find an unrelated BBC prism project [15] [16]. I am inclined to say ((citation needed)) for that assertion per WP:V. Widefox; talk 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were just a matter of the sources on the article, I would say delete. But if the appropriate sources (sources that say the US Navy, BBC... use it) were added to strengthen the notability I would say keep. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

~~Keep incredible amount of coverage , in essentialy every news source world wide by now. Utterly absurd nomination. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

A simple case of mistaken article - this is not PRISM (surveillance program), care to correct your !vote pls, and withdraw comment? Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not confuse this article with PRISM (surveillance program), which is a notable topic and frequently mentioned in the news. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, this article should be renamed to something like PRiSM (project management) to disambiguate from the extremely notable NSA spy project. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new redirect

Done in the meantime. I've separately listed PRiSM for XfD to help prevent confusion in the meantime. Widefox; talk 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good idea (although not technically needed). I've taken the liberty of renaming to Projects integrating sustainable methods with the redirect intact from PRiSM. This is why I'm here - from working on the DAB Prism. I've added a hatnote, and now it fits correctly on the DAB page as we couldn't expand the initialism before (per WP:MOSDAB). Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for non-notable management method. Although with the current brouhaha around the NSA program, it will be difficult to search for sources (although it probably was already difficult before, "prism" being an existing word...) --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of books about project management. This method doesn't seem to be mentioned in any. At best, a redirect to the company proposing it should replace the current content, and that's assuming GPM Global survives its own AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPM Global, which doesn't look likely to end in keeping that article as of now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at their website, it looks like they have a nfp board and are listed on the UN Global Compact website. Credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.44.9 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 184.18.44.9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Widefox; talk 00:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's an "nfp" board? And being listed on a website, even the UN, makes them notable how? --Randykitty (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nfp may be not for profit? - there wouldn't be any change due to WP:NONPROFIT Widefox; talk 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only evidence for importance seems to be the most trivial sort of listing. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellstar the death elf[edit]

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

Unable to find any RS except fan sites on this. Tyros1972 Talk 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick Bing search turns up nothing tied to the author (the closest I've found was something relating to World of Warcraft with Hellstar as a Blood Elf), and the article itself is unsourced and poorly written. What comic books did this Justin Williams character write, anyway? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same with Google. In fact, Google found literally nothing at all. Looks like either a hoax or, if Tyros is right about fansites, not even close to notable. Ansh666 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks to be something that someone came up with one day. I think that this is someone's fan character for something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to made up by someone. No sources. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a probable hoax. Cavarrone 06:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac L Kramer[edit]

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

Self-promtional biography of an Archbishop who has founded his own non-notable church. A string of degrees from various diploma mills (including a Doctorate in Metaphysics from Templar University, a university that, on its home page, guarantees to "present anyone a free Bachelors, Masters or Ph.D. if they answer one simple question: 'What are the most important things you've learned in your life?' There are, of course, no wrong answers." Article is supported almost exclusively by primary sources, links to organizations run by Kramer or of which he is a member. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nom. Self-promotional founder of a non-notable church. His Eminence appears not to understand proper referencing or WP:NOTPROMOTION. Off-note, Templar University makes me sad about the fate of the world. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple policy issues including obvious and blatant WP:COI issues which have not already been mentioned. Should be speedily deleted. Anglicanus (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teak furniture[edit]

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

Reads like an advert for teak furniture. Most of the text is a set of instructions for the care of furniture - which is non-encylopaedic. Rest of text is a list of types of outdoor furniture - this is hardly particular to teak! I don't believe this article can be salvaged. There is a mention of teak furniture in the teak page - this is all that is required. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes Wikipedia's notability test. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:07, 11 June 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 June 11. Snotbot t • c » 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teak#Uses. I don't dispute the notability of teak furniture but I also don't see anything worth keeping in the current article. Having said that teak is good for making outdoor furniture, it's not necessary to describe every kind of furniture that could be made from the wood. The rest of the article violates WP:NOTHOWTO and Teak already contains similar information in a non-howto format. Dricherby (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, or delete. The article is a short list of types of furniture, none of which are exclusive to teak, and a long, unsourced, unencyclopedic WP:NOTHOWTO section. Kill it now before the cruft crew gets the idea to start breaking out articles on common objects by material: steel fork, wooden fork, plastic fork, silver fork, ivory fork, Bakelite fork, etc etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Bakelite fork as an obvious content fork of Plastic fork! :-) Dricherby (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Teak#Uses per Dricherby. Now excuse me, I must use my teak longbow to scare some cruft crew members before they get to those fork articles! (Said teak longbow is sadly less accurate than a good old yew, but I keep it for show, and my yew's in the shop today.) öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've already found half a dozen valid journal articles #s 1,2,3,4 ,7,8 using the simplest possible keyword approach. More coming. I think there could indeed be a valid article for each of the major furniture woods--there are not all that many. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, who has demonstrated that plenty of good sources exist to make a full article. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners[edit]

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

I view this list as WP:OP. The lead claims the "mass media" has "drawn up" these lists before. I see no such reliable sources to indicate such a list and the bulk of the sources in the references list only link to FIFA articles (i.e. first party source) to prove what competitions are considered official and which ones aren't. I see no third party list to verify this list. MicroX (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. MicroX (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to be WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This list is a global version of this and this one. Before cancel this page, you should request deleted the others and box like this because these information have exactly the same problems (UEFA does a similar list parcially, but the CONMEBOL not, are susceptible to polarization of the media, etc). The media have made such lists for 20 years but generally includes exclusivelly European and South American teams. The only "original" in this article was include the African and clubs of the rest of the world...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should take a look at WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In addition, the three articles that you cited can be put up for discussion. --MicroX (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if the media sources that explicitly make mention of this classification omit some tournaments, including others who really are not official value and consider exclusively Europe and South America as "planet football", how do we proceed?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you are trying to say. Also, what "media" sources? Provide some for us that explicitly aggregate global trophy wins. --MicroX (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, the media are doing this kind of lists as we read here, here and here. While the media are biased and often instrumentalized anything to sell copies or gain rating, this is not original research. As I said, the only "original" in this list was limited to the same parameter applied for Milan and Boca (the pointers in the list with 18 titles althrough they have won really 21): confederal titles and FIFA Club World Cup for the rest of cases and include other clubs confederations (often ignored by the media).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Those sources virtually give a count for individual clubs. It isn't an entire list. They are also counting Barcelona's 3 Fairs Cup titles which are excluded from the list and the exclusion is justified with the numerous UEFA and FIFA documents that do not recognize the tournament on the same level as the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, etc. It turns into a mess of WP:SYNTH. --MicroX (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After finally deciphering the lead paragraph, I have determined that the entire premise of this article is spurious. There is no basis for this article in the "mass media", as the article claims, and I'm not even sure most of the competitions listed on the page fit the description in the title. In fact, the title suggests that the page should name the winners of each competition, not just the competitions themselves. This is flawed on many levels. – Pee Jay 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a horrible mess. No evidence this has been dealt with as a single topic, so it qualifies as WP:SYNTH. C 679 07:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a hot mess this is. A fine candidate for WP:LISTCRUFT. "A couple of editors on Wikipedia have drawn up a list of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners" would be a better first sentence. Less said about "ordered by an overall quantitative value in descending mode," the better. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Let's AGF and give this one a bit of time to expand and improve. SarahStierch (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington-Wheatley, Kansas City[edit]

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

No assertion of broader notability Against the current (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep→ useful, expandable and verifiable geographical information [24]. At worst, redirect to Neighborhoods of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs sources, expansion, etc. But it is a notable neighborhood.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multicast VLAN registration[edit]

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

No particular evidence of notability either in the article, or a Google search. All sources that I spotted are either unreliable, or primary (are linked to ISPs or similar companies). As such, this fails WP:GNG. The fact the article is a long-term orphan is another hint at a lack of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find a few patents on the technology, and it does appear in several vendor's switch manuals. So it might merit a mention somewhere, probably IP multicast or virtual LAN, for example. A merge is probably not worth it, since there are no sources and it is not clear if the article is technically correct. From a quick look at the vendors' manuals and patents, it looks to me like there is not really a "protocol" but a switch feature. It seems the Internet Group Management Protocol is the one used. There might be some proprietary protocol among the switches of a single vendor in a "stack", but if not documented, we obviously will not find much about it. An IETF or IEEE protocol might be notable, but not just a vendor feature. And no links to it, so no need to keep around a redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is certainly not established in the article and there's not enough information in the article for me to determine what this article is trying to be about. Maybe Multiple Registration Protocol? ~KvnG 15:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe the feature uses that protocol now? But anyway still no evidence it is a "protocol" of its own, or even still really relevant. Clearly a Wikipedia article for every acronym ever coined in a manual does not make sense. W Nowicki (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kvindemuseet i Danmark[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. could find very little coverage [25]. also Danish WP article is also unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The museum has an entry in Den Store Danske, which suggests it is a notable institution. It is possible to find out more in newspapers such as [26] (Svenska Dagbladet), [27] (Kristeligt Dagblad), [28] (Berlingske Tidende) etc (try to search for Kvindemuseet Aarhus). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage per good analysis by Vejvančický (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. I also found a report from TV 2 News from 2011 which focused on the museum's economic struggle which was then debated in the Danish Parliament. with one parliamentarian calling the museum a leading museum of its kind in the world. (a later report from 2012, behind paywall, shows that they got more money). And here is another report from 2011 in Information about an exhibiition about rape held at the museum. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per abundance of demonstrated sources by above editors. I added some to article including 20 Good Years For Women's Museum from Jyllands-Posten and this article in the Journal of Women's History. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Herzeleid. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weißes Fleisch[edit]

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

There appears to be no basis for notability of this song other than it is mentioned in a German article (cited in this article) regarding the columbine killers. I am One of Many (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep, as G-news offers a lot of sources in multiple languages. It can also be redirected to the article about the album: Herzeleid. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A redirect seems reasonable to me. The original article was written in a way to derive its notability from the Columbine High School massacre, so, at the very least, it should be rewritten based on the notability of the song itself. Clearly the album is notable, but I noticed that articles written on individual songs in the album appear to lack independent reliable sources to establish notability.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Herzeleid per the nom's comment above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per SNOW. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in the United States[edit]

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

This list does not seem to have any real encyclopedic purpose. Most of the items in the list do not have articles unto themselves and if they do have articles it's just because the notable hospital listed has a specialized burn ward. As the past few hours have shown, people seem to only use this page within social media to make a point. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad nomination. This article is currently undergoing a spate of vandalism due to a link from a popular blog. The nominator does not seem to be aware of the history and importance of burn centers in the United States. They are expensive highly specialized facilities which are quite rare. The US is a worlwide leader in burn medicine due to these centers. Burn medicine in the US hit its peak in the 80s and the expense of running a burn center has led to multiple closures since then. While many hospitals in the US have something like an ER usually there are only a couple of burn centers per state, if that. This rarity, combined with the amount of research generated by each burn center, makes them notable entities. Moreover a list of these entities has a clear encyclopedic use and can stand alone as a complete well-sourced reference and sister article to burn center (which needs some work). The argument that most entries are currently redlinks is a non-starter. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of burn centers does not detract from the fact that this is just a list of hospitals in the US that happen to have burn units, many of which do not have articles on their own, which means that this list does not serve any useful navigational purpose.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation is not the sole purpose for lists on wikipedia. Lists may include subject-specific information. It may not always be preferable to maintain an article on each burn center, in which case this list should link to the burn center section in the parent hospital's article. If any of the burn center hospitals do not yet have articles then there's nothing wrong with leaving a redlink. The notability criteria for hospitals are fairly lax and the possession of a specialized burn center is a signifier of notability in and of itself.

I understand the frustration of dealing with poorly maintained articles and vandalism. Sometimes circumstances conspire to call administrator attention to articles which should be deleted, other times to articles which need improvement. In this case I think you made a mistake by choosing the former instead of calling attention to the latter. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this list serves a valid navigational purpose. Per WP:RED, "Red links are frequently present in lists [...]" and "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any benefit for this project in deleting this kind of information. Useful summary for medical research. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many blue links on the list, and the red links point toward future article creation opportunities. We don't delete an article or a list just because a bunch of trolls get their kicks by vandalizing it for a while. They will move on, and we will improve the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above. Russavia (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it seems to me that the nomination was driven by (over?)reaction to a bout of vandalism. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If important, suggest adding a category too! Widefox; talk 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above. I will keep an eye on the list and help to turn some of the red links into solid articles.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Something being used for a humorous does not make it inherently unencyclopaedic, nor does a large target of vandalism need to be removed because of such. Sellyme^Talk 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW, frivolous deletion nomination. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cheng (entrepreneur)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is biased/lacking notability. Written either by subject, or someone familiar with the subject, as shown from the author being the photographer of the subject's photo. This is against Wikipedia policy Magedseven (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree that this article violates Wikipedia guidelines in terms of bias, notability, etc. Note that the original deletion nomination I made failed because I didn't see any support from other Wikipedians and didn't feel I had enough experience with Wikipedia to make a decision on my own. Plus one of the article's authors cleaned up a few things in the article to make it better, but it's still a fairly unimportant topic filled with primary research and bias. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Top 25 under 25" and "Future Leaders of Canada" mean not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of this article and am not connected to the subject. It is through my research that I developed the article and am always welcome to feedback in order to improve my contributions. To address the photo issue, I have requested a photo from Stephanie Lake Photography to replace the previous photo. Vast news coverage of the subject from numerous notable publications suggest clear notability, as seen in Metro International (Page 23), Financial Post Article, Vancouver Sun Article, The Province Article, Ottawa Citizen Article, Edmonton Journal Article, The Star Phoenix, The Windsor Star, Gazette Article, Calgary Herald Article, and The Now Article. Vancitystars (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2013 (PST)
Delete purely biased, certainly not a notable person (i.e. Steve Jobs or Bill gates) just a bio to promote his business ventures that's all, so he can show investors. Nonsense! Tyros1972 Talk 11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus -- Y not? 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phonoscope Communications[edit]

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

Seems like an advertisement of the company. Lot of COI and POV Amit (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete? I'm not sure what the bar to be met here is. The company appears in numerous business directories and similar works, and also promoted a semi-notable press event. Seems no more or less notable that other mid-tier providers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bar to be met is WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Dricherby (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G-books mention the company in several publications, but I can't find anything substantial in reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have rewritten the page to address POV complaints. I believe more information, which would help to cement notability, can be added over time by other Houstonians. Mike Richardson (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I decided to look into Phonoscope's distance learning endeavors and found this story from Galveston Daily News. (you can download a PDF directly from here). A newspaper would seem to qualify to be a reliable and published source without much argument. The establishment of a two way videotelephone system in 1962 for distance education seems notable to me. Perhaps some technological details could be discovered over time by others. Mike Richardson (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mike Richardson's edit of the article has dealt with the POV and advertisement issues, which were never a reason for deletion in the first place (WP:NOTCLEANUP). I think the company is just about notable. There's the full-length article in the Houston Business Journal (cited in the article), which is about the founder Lee Cook but gives lots of information about the company, along with plenty of less-detailed mentions in computing and general publications. As an aside, the early provision of distance learning for the Galveston school board (mentioned in the HBJ article) would make a very interesting section, if anyone can find out more about it. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kamihira White[edit]

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

Highly promotional page, not having any luck finding significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. This search yielded the most results but none are significant IMO. J04n(talk page) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written this article only using information that is out there in cyberspace. I realise that most of the references are not the best but its better than nothing! I think this guy is notable and we should have an article on him; its a shame that he's not had much coverage from big news sites. I hope I have managed to save this article from deletion! ツStacey (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. L Faraone 03:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film[edit]

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

We have an article on List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Till date only three films were nominated and I don't think a separate list is needed for those three films. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already contained in List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. No reason to split this out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film also contains a column for country and is sortable, so all of any particular country's nominations are easily findable there. postdlf (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. There is no reason to separate them here, but I always look for a reasonable redirect or merge instead of a flat-out deletion. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn - nominated in error and now at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Josina Machel (FRELIMO). (Procedural non-admin close. Stalwart111 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josina Machel (FRELIMO)[edit]

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

Requesting change of title to Josina Machel as no other celebrity has that name. I would've moved it myself but the suggested title redirects to the current one so the system won't let me. Thebirdlover (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I do not have this right, could someone please move the request? Thank you. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aramo Project[edit]

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

I couldn't find much in the form of secondary sources and notability per WP:GNG seems lacking. The article has no references. A quick check revealed that the author's articles are frequent guests on AfD. Maybe I'm missing something. If so let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, and just another self-promotion project for Michel von Tell (see "Notes" in the Aramo Project article). Thomas.W (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find a reliable, independent source. There are social media sources, but nothing else. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of the Jimkio12 family of spam articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Center for Detection of Cancer Lab[edit]

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

Individual faculty member's lab in a single department of a single university. Very unwisely accepted from AfC.

Diamandis himself is notable, and an article should be written. But it shouldnt start from here. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited: make an article on Diamandis, but as far as I can tell, the lab doesn't meet WP:ORG - I could find no significant coverage or independent sources. Ansh666 03:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a ((db-hoax)). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American tiger[edit]

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

Delete, the sources provided do not show that we had an American tiger, they show Siberian Tigers were present in America at some point. The second source is a youtube video. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Name looks to be a play on Miracinonyx (American cheetah), only results on Google for Tirainonyx are this article and some random site, "the animal roamed across the plains of Africa". Looks like a hoax. Chris857 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per Chris. Ansh666 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per above.
Speedy Delete - I'm hanging a hoax tag on this puppy. "extinct...breed of two genus"? Ummmm, I'm not exactly Mr. Science, but my bullshit detector is whooping so loudly that I can't hear out of my left ear. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human First Foundation[edit]

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a noble cause, it does not have sourcing to meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and no RS sources found in web search. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Brendon is here 08:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Kollam. Remember that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for SK#1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karickom[edit]

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

Article should be merged in Kollam or removed don't find any reference which indiates this place is notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, not a settlement of sufficient size or with RSes to give detailed information of use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Kollam per nom. Next time, though, see Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangat clan[edit]

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief description of clan found here and here. This book about the Jat people the clan belongs to also at least mentions the clan, possibly more but limited view on Google so I can't see the depth of coverage. postdlf (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first of the sources found by Postdlf is generally not considered to be reliable, and the last is written by a known oddball for whom we once had an article here that was deleted via AfD. B S Nijjar - the middle of those three links - is ok but says virtually nothing about this clan. These are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Alas, that tends to be the case with most clans of India: such articles are basically stub surname articles and the chances of improvement tend to be slight, even when appeals are made for reliable non-English sources. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sitush's reasoning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Subject might be notable but I can't find the sources to back that up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Some more intensive research is needed, but, he's been featured in journals, some more interesting music websites and the Guardian. SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Haynes[edit]

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

Advert for "acrostic poet". Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is as a lyricist that he would appear notable. He co-wrote a song on White Men Can't Jump (soundtrack), for example. WP:BAND #10 might apply, therefore. He's co-written songs on charting albums like Powerlight, Skin on Skin (album) and Riptide (album). That said, the article certainly needs a lot of clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 28 May 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, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs major clean up, but not an advert and likely notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I suspect there is notability out there, but I am not seeing it in RS acceptable sources. This article may just need some deep source searching to make it a "keep." -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardline (subculture)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. The entire article (which is very long given the obscurity of the topic) is based on one source, and much of it is written as original research. Delete. DogsHeadFalls (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Repaired incomplete nomination czar · · 07:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The one reference used in the article is dead, and it probably didn't satisfy WP:RS anyway. Freikorp (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page has been on my watch-list for almost 5 years now, and has been tagged the whole time. My guess is nobody has improved it because the subject is so little known/un-notable, but that of course is secondary to the issue that I can't find reliable sources to help the article either. Freikorp (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source seems to be a website or blog which wouldn't be considered reliable here. Nothing else to say without potentially hurting people's feelings. Borock (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Vegan Reich and Straight Edge. Obviously, the article itself lacks citations and is far too long. However, I can confirm as a straight edger and active member of the hardcore punk scene that Hardline was a notable movement/philosophy in the straight edge/hardcore scene of the 90s. It is mostly associated with zine writer/hardcore musician Sean Muttaqi and his band Vegan Reich. Vegan Reich were notable for having put out a "Hardline manifesto" in one of their releases.

After a quick search, I was able to find a few references to Hardline that at the very least mention it and its notability within the scene:

Perhaps Hardline doesn't warrant its own article, but I believe that it is notable as a part of straight edge history. I believe that the article should be trimmed down to more basic content with appropriate citations. At the very least, the info should be merged into a section of Straight Edge (perhaps a section discussing the militant sub-movements of the 90s like Hardline), as well as an article on Vegan Reich, which needs to be created. The citations I listed would be a great start for all of the above tasks. Wall Screamer (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those sources are blogs, and one is Sean Muttaqi's personal website, therefore not independent. The first source listed may or may not be reliable, but barely mentions the subculture. I have created a page for Vegan Reich and ask that the information from the Hardline article be incorporated into that article.DogsHeadFalls (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See
- Haenfler, Ross (2006). Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean Living Youth, and Social Change. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3851-3.
- Kuhn, Gabriel (2010). Sober Living for the Revolution: Hardcore Punk, Straight Edge, and Radical Politics. PM Press. ISBN 1-60486-051-0.
- Wood, Robert T. (2006). Straight Edge Youth: The Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-3127-8.

for citations.--Guerillero | My Talk 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Nom, DogsHeadFalls, has now been indef'd for sock-puppetry. Stalwart111 04:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing showing in this piece is abysmal, but as Wall Screamer and Guerillero indicate (and there is no doubt more out there), this is a legitimate encyclopedic topic with multiple pieces of independently-published coverage. Passes GNG. The deficiencies of the article are an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other potentially valid result would be a merger to straight edge. Hardline was (is?) an almost neo-fascist offshoot of that philosophy. It was a 1990s cultural sub-grouping, in essence. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to dig up the source in the article, archive.org doesn't have it, but it was a forum article so I doubt it was an RS anyways. Other sources exist and it is possible to improve it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wall Screamer and Guerillero. Robman94 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardline is a notable offshoot within hardcore. The article's current references and those provided by Guerillero make this pass WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 02:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kuldeepak Singh Kular[edit]

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

Non-notable surgeon. Previously PRODded; PROD removed by IP editor without comment. Still no indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is packed with POV but has a dearth of referencing. Only the EL to the subject's own institution scrapes it past BLP Unsourced at the moment. I did find this article, but it is insufficient to demonstrate biographcal notability. Basically this is a man with a job. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing would be non-english, but mentions like this exist. [29] While a small reference, the claim is backed and their is likely more in hindi sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you say though, The Indian Express article is a small mention - effectively a passing quotation in a brief news article - and as I said above seems too light to establish notability for the person. It is also possible, as you say, that there may be sources in other languages, but we can't assume notability on speculation that there may be sources elsewhere? AllyD (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant sources, fails WP:BASIC: Not the subject of multiple published secondary sources... independent of the subject‎. Tassedethe (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ChrisGualtieri; I don't see what the claim to notability here is. He got a mention in a newspaper article, which isn't about him, anyway. (The article strikes me as local cheerleading for the local hospital, noting the remarkability that a UK citizen would come there for treatment.) The closest thing to a notability claim in the article is "He is the pioneer to start the mini gastric bypass surgery in India in 2007." But, assuming that to be true (and glossing the "pioneer" peacocking): does being the surgeon who started a particular surgical procedure in a particular country give rise to notability? I don't think it does. The other stuff (presenting at conferences, membership in societies, having been a student of the not-so-clearly-identified "famous bariatric surgeon Dr Rutledge USA") would be mention-worthy if the individual were notable, but do not have any bearing on the notability issue. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Per Google Scholar he has published only three articles in medical journals, and only one of them got any citations at all. This article is basically promotion for his weight-loss surgery practice. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Football League[edit]

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

Article subject is a European Football (soccer) season that doesn't even begin until August. See WP:TOOSOON Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do have articles about past seasons of this league, the 2012-13 season is over, and the 2013-14 season is less than two months away from starting. I don't think it's too soon to create this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AdF Nom On the basis of the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Park, San Diego[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because Fairmont Park, like other neighborhoods, is not notable. There are no citation establishing that either. Citrusbowler (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect to List of communities and neighborhoods of San Diego; subject has received passing mention in reliable sources, but nothing that I would say is significant coverage. However, per WP:GEOLAND, the subject is notable (an essay); as I have never cited GEOLAND and I am unsure whether it is highly received or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The issue with the redirect is that it removes all information and, on the redirected-to page, there is no information. The article has some notablitity, although it needs a major cleanup. Uberaccount (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and make a redirect. That's the better option it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my opinion, the issue with merging is that the merged-to page is just a list and will keep none of the information on the page. Uberaccount (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (changing to Keep, see below) to City Heights, San Diego, the planning area of which it is a part. I dispute the nominator's claim that neighborhoods are not notable: some are, some aren't, they are subject to GNG like anything else. In this case, Fairmont Park is a real neighborhood recognized by the city, but it does not seem to have attracted enough notice to qualify for an article. All I could find in a Google News search was occasional references to a crime happening there. I did add the information about the community plan area and the city council district to the article, so that even if it is redirected, the information will be retrievable for possible future expansion back into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The name of the neighborhood is misspelled in the title. Per city sources [30] the name is actually Fairmount Park (with a "u"). I'm not going to move it in the middle of an AfD discussion because I understand that screws things up for the closing administrator, but if the article is kept or redirected the name should be changed to Fairmount Park, San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - mostly because mainstream news sources like U-T San Diego (here) and MSNBC (here) recognise it as a place and seem confident enough to refer to it by name without any qualifications, caveats, explanations or directions. Unlike other neighbourhood names created by real estate agents to avoid using the names of less-popular areas (and as highlighted above), this one is recognised by the city. I wouldn't strongly oppose a merge, but I also think there is justification for keeping it. Stalwart111 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Keep per the new sources found by Stalwart. Adding those to the sources I previously found searching under the misspelled name Fairmont Park [31] [32] it appears that this is a generally recognized neighborhood of San Diego and worthy of a stub article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmajid Dostiev[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. recent discussion on WP:BIO talk page shows that ambassadors are not inherently notable. also nominating:

Thongsavanh Phomvihane
Khieu Thavika
Bui Dinh Dinh
Amir Hussain Sikder LibStar (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 09:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 June 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) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the respective lists on their diplomatic posts, until such time as there is more verifiable content than just the fact that they held those posts. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did the nominator follow WP:BEFORE? Notable diplomat and politician. Radio Free Europe described him as "Deputy Speaker of Parliament Abdulmajid Dostiev, a powerful political figure in Tajikistan". He has an extensive article in The Historical Dictionary of Tajikistan. Pburka (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abdulmajid Dostiev. Unlike many similar articles, there is substance here and a fair enough of references. --Klein zach 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we list the other four biographies separately? I am minded to say delete for each of them, but I think they should be considered one by one. Klein zach 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw Abdulmajid Dostiev and separate out. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Pointe[edit]

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

I cannot judge this topic; the references here seem mere mentions, or press releases; there are a number of similar items in google. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 08:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 08:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 08:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 June 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) 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable at this time. Ref 1&2 are mere mentions (the same adverspeak on 2 different www pages), 3 never mentions this company, and the rest are references for the Owner, not this company. Dump everything in the article about the owner and your left with a 3 sentence Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:DICDEF - a redirect may be appropriate, but the strongest arguments appeart towards deletion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flip (slang)[edit]

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

Dicdef, sources don't support the term or any other content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own article. Likely a case of undue weight. At the very best, only worth a brief mention in Filipino American, but nothing more, if that. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Pinoy, which is essentially the same, both being slang and somewhat derogatory. FWIW, my boyfriend is Filipino-American. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: here in the Philippines, Pinoy isn't considered derogatory and in fact, most Filipinos are proud to be called "Pinoys" and don't think of it as pejorative. It can be considered a term of endearment, unlike say "Yank" or "Seppo". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a Filipino, and I can say that the term is virtually unheard of, at least in the Philippines, and I've never heard any of my relatives living in America use it (in fact, I've only heard of "Flip" used in this sense because of this AfD). It's not used by local media either, and worst of all, it's not mentioned in a lot of (if any) reliable sources. It could be mentioned in the Filipino American article, but since the term is quite obscure (at least in my opinion), at most a very brief (maybe one line) mention would be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect to Filipino American. This might be systematic bias of available internet searchable sources, but if one were to look up "Flip" slang Filipino one would find multiple academic journal entries, and a number of book entries (some dictionary definitions, others a little more in-depth). Now I understand that some of the arguments are based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY, but it maybe possible to cobble something more than a stub entry based on the sources I found to write a history of the word, and its then its present usage in the United States (and possibly elsewhere). Otherwise as the majority of internet searchable sources are from the United States, and thus my systematic bias statement earlier, the article can be turned into a redirect to Filipino American as an alternative name of the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 2 June 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, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]