< 15 May	17 May >

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

The result was speedy delete. Withdrawn by sole author DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Size Awards[edit]

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

Awards are not relevant enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmorgans (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that you created the article in October, and contested speedy deletion by adding references to demonstrate notability. What's changed? Captain Conundrum (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was new to wikipedia so it was one of a few practice articles (we all have to start somewhere) although I thought at the time a 2012 award would occur but it didn't. So I don't think there is any need for the article anymore. davidmorgans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prosperity theology. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of success[edit]

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

This stub article is a clear POV-fork of prosperity theology, and is little more than a WP:coatrack for commentry by a single theologian on another named individual. Contrary to the (unreferenced) claim in the first paragraph, the phrase 'gospel of success' is hardly used in the media (Google news appears not to find it at all for example [1]). There is no evidence provided to demonstrate that the concept, as defined in the article (as opposed to a synonym for prosperity theology and the like) has any notability whatsoever, and accordingly the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Attleboro (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "About 18,700 results" on educational websites alone for "gospel of success" -- at minimum should redirect. Attleboro (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And can you actually cite any of those sources for a definition of the term that matches the one in the article? Notability is an attribute of an article subject, rather than of a phrase used as a title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is no neologism. Please feel free to adjust the definition, but be sure to note or account for the general negative tone of its uses. Attleboro (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will 'note' that you have failed to provide any evidence for a 'general negative tone'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In every instance cited, the term "gospel of success" is used with at least regret if not outright condemnation. I think the burden's upon you to show that the gospel of success really is "Christian religious doctrine" as the prosperity theology is presented. Attleboro (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will need to provide actually reliably published sources that explicitly say that. Wikipedia editor cannot "interpret" the tone of primary source usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Refs. cited, but you must stop removing them so others can read them, too. Attleboro (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they are merely using the phrase, not discussing it as a specific topic and each source is using the phrase in a different manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect WP:POVFORK zero indication that the use of the phrase has any specific connection with the meaning put forth by the editor.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prosperity theology. The phrase is used often enough to justify it as a search term (GNews archives has 7 pages of results, GBooks has quite a few as well) but I find no evidence that "gospel of success" is generally understood to mean something distinct from what our existing prosperity theology article is about, or that there is some general understanding that "gospel of success" is always (or even usually) understood to denote a "heresy". WP:DICT is often misused in AfD arguments, but this is an appropriate instance to note its instruction that, "in Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." In other words, we don't usually need two articles to cover two phrases that refer to the same concept. As it currently exists, this is just a WP:COATRACK for a couple of negative opinions on the topic. Maybe those opinions can be incorporated into the existing discussion in the "theological criticism" section of that article, but not as currently written.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prosperity theology as above. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree if "as above" means to a more general criticism section, rather than "the 'theological criticism' section of that article, ... as currently written." Attleboro (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I would have thought that someone talking about "heresy" would pretty clearly be a "theological criticism". --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers vary as to who is qualified to determine heresy. A nonbeliever may not require a notable theologian and accept evidence of mere inconsistency with Christian first principles. A true believer may require more, such as professing faith in those principles. The general and, it seems, negative uses of "gospel of success" seem to come from journalists or social commentary, by theologians or not. Attleboro (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while readers may vary, we and our article content have guidelines. If the people making quotes are not qualified to make determinations about "heresy" then we should not be using them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Prosperity theology, but I'm not sure of what should be the title. The present phrase is the one I recognize. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeas noted by DGG. That's reasonable. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. If this is not precisely the same as Prosperity theology, placing the content in that article will provide a useful means of indicatfing how they differ. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charlotte, North Carolina. J04n(talk page) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Zoo[edit]

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

This is quite a grey area, I think. The initiative to create a zoo, an initiative which may succeed or fail, but which is "still a few years away" according to news Channel 14 appears to me to be crystal ball gazing. There is no zoo, there is just an initiative which may generate one. So I am listing it for discussion to seek to determine whether it has sufficient notability to have an article here. I have not yet made up my own mind and make this as a neutral nomination. I may from an opinion which I will give later in the discussion which follows. Fiddle Faddle 22:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh666 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline WP:CRYSTAL - the initiative could go bust at any time. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per HMS and WP: CRYSTAL. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlotte, North Carolina#Culture. This information strikes me as worthwhile content about Charlotte, but probably not quite ripe for its own article. Rather than deletion I think it would be better to add a paragraph in the city article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arxiloxos. I promised thought when I made an initially neutral nomination. That was is. Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maysam Makhmalbaf[edit]

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

No notability has been asserted. The references as they stand do not verify notability either, they simply show that he exists. Notability is not inherited from family members. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added specific details of his work.

Delete Per nom. Existence does not prove notability. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER. And "inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability.".Farhikht (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Kabirat (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Currie[edit]

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

Obscure actress; non-notable performer being puffed up by an s.p.a. Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: non-notable performer?! Have you googled "Sondra currie"? have you checked the huge list of appearances in IMDB on television and in movies? She had major roles back in the 70s and is still active even today in the 2013 movie "The Hangover III"! To me, that's far from being "non-notable". And BTW, what "s.p.a."? -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the s.p.a. that brought her to my attention is User:Ajlscl14.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean what is the meaning of "s.p.a."? I realize now that I missed a "is" in my original question which made it confusing. I now assume "a" stands for "administrator" but I'd like to know the rest. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single-purpose account (s.p.a.) is a Wikimedia account which is clearly not there to improve the project, but rather to accomplish a single purpose, be it to bump up the visibility of a performer or to fill all feminism-related articles with scathing misogynist "rebuttals" of the errors of feminism. In this case, the only thing Ajlsc114 has ever done here is to alter articles to make Currie look more important. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I've looked at the list of changes and User:Ajlscl14 made relatively small changes to the article. I fail to see how it was "puffed up" by him. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at her credits on IMDB I can see she has had a long and notable career. She has started in some films as the main character even. Dream Focus 05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - all the IMDb listing shows is that she has worked for a long while. There is no coverage in the article outside of databases to show that her work has ever attracted the attention of anybody who writes about television or film, in spite of almost forty years in the industry. There are bit players who never attract attention, who may be thought of well by casting directors, but who nonetheless fail our standards of notability; and the lack of sources implies to me that this is one such performer. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:NACTOR. Its clearly met. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Dream Focus 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MOVIE. Clearly meets the requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- huh? WP:MOVIE is for notability of films, not performers. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first sentence of WP:MOVIE says "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised this debate is still open. Even though most of her TV work consists of one-time roles, the sheer volume of her TV work alone makes her notable, and that's without mentioning her film history. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the verbosity of the nominator, who does bring up some good arguments, fundamentally this person clearly meets WP:NACTOR for her multiple roles in notable films. Mkdw ^talk 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile infantry[edit]

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

More of an essay than an actual article. Unsourced. Minimal activity since it was created in 2005. Outside of Starship Troopers this isn't a term in common military use in the Western world. Intothat darkness 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something (I'm not really sure what) - the term has been in use since at the latest the '30s (see here) to describe vehicle-borne infantry (motorised/mechanised), but the article really doesn't meet any sort of standards. Ansh666 00:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Per Dainomite and Piotrus below, Keep and either create disambiguation page or improve and source content. Ansh666 03:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Then move Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) here. The term's not used by the military as far as I can see. An adjective attached to infantry doesn't merit an article. It's even used here to describe upward career mobility. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Create disambiguation page - Create a disambiguation page that links to Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers), mechanized infantry and motorised infantry. The news hits show it as a term used around the time of WWII ('30s and '40s) to describe infantry with increased mobility.— -dainomite 01:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess a link to the discussion in the German Wikipedia after which their article was deleted - de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/25. Juni 2010#Mobile Infanterie (gelöscht) - might be useful... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poor quality, but that is not reason for deletion. It is on topic, and the subject, despite nom claim, is widely used in English language, and outside ST context. Here's a book with a section titled "Mobile infantry", about a 1930s German type of a unit, for example: Chris Bishop (15 December 2007). German Panzers in World War Two. MBI Publishing Company. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-7603-3116-3. Retrieved 17 May 2013.. Here's a source using this in context of Australian army: Jean Bou (24 November 2009). Light Horse: A History of Australia's Mounted Arm. Cambridge University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-521-19708-3. Retrieved 17 May 2013.; that source also notes it was called mounted infantry in WWI context. Eric Hammel. The Forge. Pacifica Military History. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-890988-54-8. Retrieved 17 May 2013. in turn draws a parallel to motorized infantry (so, at the very least, this should not be a redirect, but a disambig - still, I feel that both mounted and motorized as subtypes of the main topic which is mobile). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The "mobile" is just used as an adjective in the first reference. It's like Leg infantry or Elite infantry. The other two references are about mounted and motorized infantry respectively, which have their own articles. There are actual units that have "Motorized", "Mounted" or "Mechanized" in their names, but none that are called "Mobile", except in fiction. This is also not suitable for a dab page. Only one entry is synonymous with the term. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not actually an English-language term. The references provided by Piotrus above are not in fact focused on "mobile infantry" (the term doesn't even seem to appear), but refer to "mounted infantry" and "motorised infantry", which are distinct concepts in their own right. All infantry are 'mobile' in some way - one of the key features of this branch is that they can cross difficult terrain, and so the mobility of infantry isn't a distinctive concept which can be defined in any coherent way (eg, good examples of infantry mobility include the movements of Roman legions through northern Scotland and the rapid advance of US mechanised infantry in the Iraq War). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is clear: infantry with enhanced mobility. As this has been done in variety of ways - bicycles, helicopters, horses and motor vehicles - a general page is appropriate to assist readers in navigating to more detailed and specific accounts. Warden (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can you please provide some references which use this term to describe such a generic concept? It's not a commonly-used term in my experience. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd certainly support some sort of disambiguation page, which might be a reasonable idea. But keeping a term that seems to be a wiki-invention makes no real sense to me. You'll also see references to "foot mobile" infantry. Does that mean we should add that, too? And no, "mobile infantry" doesn't seem to me to be the same thing as "infantry with enhanced mobility." Intothat darkness 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On first blush it seems notable, however Clarityfiend makes a very good argument... it's essentially just an already covered subject with an adjective in front of it. For practical considerations anything new here should be added to the infantry article. It should also be mentioned the article's worthless, it sounds like someone just wrote it off the top of their head. It adds nothing, and having another article placeholder that duplicates what we already have is an invitation for duplicity, needless work, and vandalism. Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term not actually used. Motorised infantry or mechanised infantry, yes; mobile infantry, no. It doesn't even actually mean anything, since all troops are mobile, if only on their feet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the lack of sourcing is its most egregious (sp?) fault. I've had a look, though not extensive, and not found an instance of the phrase "mobile infantry" where the mobile bit is anything other than an adjective ("...more mobile infantry" "mobile infantry square"). Don't see any future in a disambig nor redirect. Heinlein's creation can just sit at "Mobile Infantry". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one instance where it is part of a bigger phrase is "Light Protected Mobile Infantry role" and "Mechanised (Heavy Protected Mobile) Infantry role" in a Parliamentary report, but seems to be a civil service exercise in capitals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zip for references...and the term is better explained as mechanized infantry since that is what the article is really trying to explain anyway. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS for usage in an actual military context. Seems to be covered over at Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers). EricSerge (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael La Porta[edit]

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

This subject fails both WP:GNG, for lack of coverage altogether, and WP:PROFESSOR, in terms of academic accomplishments. JFHJr (㊟) 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and suggest that the nominator re-read WP:PROF. The subject's paper "Law and finance" has over 12000 citations in Google scholar, far higher than our usual standards for WP:PROF#C1. Nine of his publications have over 1000 citations, again far more than we usually consider a passing level. And as a named professor at an Ivy league school he also passes #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination is either vandalism or incompetence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Paino[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:PROFESSOR as well as WP:GNG. He might well belong on a list of presidents on the Truman U article, but not every president of every university is inherently notable. In this case, we've got serious verifiability/confirmation/relevance problems when it comes to third party sources. JFHJr (㊟) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Let's get real - the nominator of this article has meticulously gone through the list of articles I have created and nominated numerous ones for deletion, most of which have existed for a long period of time and some of which have PREVIOUSLY been put to a vote. This nomination is gross incompetence and disregard for the process and is motivated by some animus stemming from a separate issue. Troy Paino is the president of a university (Google it, dude), which is the "highest-level ... appointed academic post at a major academic institution". Criterion #6 for academics is met, and this nomination is frivolous. Adamc714 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — A bona fide question remains: is Truman State University a "major academic institution or major academic society" within the meanings of the criteria? I don't think its prestige is clearly at the level that every president is inherently notable. Not every university has this effect on its presidents. Where's the third party sourcing for significant biographical details? JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What are the rules governing whether an institution is "major"? The illustrative example just replaces the word "major" with "significant". That tells us nothing. By my reading of the criterion, there is a per se rule that Presidents of accredited universities are notable. I think the criteria are trying to avoid exactly what you are trying to start: a debate/vote on the significance of schools, which would produce arbitrary results at best. Adamc714 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Many previous AfDs have established that a public university is a major academic institution and their presidents are notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OSE comments such as this at AFD are usually discarded. Did you want to apply a more policy-based argument? Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under WP:PROF c6, which has been invoked here at academics' AFD numerous times. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I completely agree. Bad reasons - that are totally irrelevant to the question of whether an encyclopedia article is possible to write on the subject - have been invoked in the past, so let's continue to invoke them! 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to debate the merits of WP:PROF#C6 on the notability guideline there, but we debate common policies and guidelines off of AfD specifically because they are invoked in lots of discussions. It'd be more productive to try to change consensus there than here.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk)

Snow Keep. President of a large, accredited public institution (one of the MO state universities) is notable per se under WP:PROF c6 and there is plenty of documentation that he is indeed the president, e.g. this in the Kirksville Daily Express. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Question — So practically speaking, it's encyclopedic to have a stub entry that just says he is/was president? Just because Criterion 6 is met? Nothing else about this person seems to be reliably sourced, and should go. Nothing I've found contains more than a passing mention, except of course exclusively primary sources, which tend to be CV material. WP:BLPSPS prohibits us from basing articles on living persons overly on such sources. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF C6 as president of a large and significant public university. To briefly summarize the justification for secondary notability criteria: consensus is that people passing these criteria are significant enough to be included, either because sources are certain to exist, or because sources exist for so many of them that completion is better than leaving it blank, or because their contribution to knowledge and its recording is significant in some other way. Ray^Talk 14:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stub articles grow. We do not discourage them. There's material to add on his publications,at the very least, and undoubtedly references about his appointment. I added his doctoral thesis and a published article in a peer-reviewed journal. For a BLP , it's enough to clearly show and references the basis of the notability, and that is done here. We have sometimes deleted articles for presidents of very small higher educational institutions, but not a major university. There's no need it be a premier research institution--that's not what major means in this context. Any of the 4 year US state universities would meet this requirement. I'm not sure how far down we would go, possibly not to small junior colleges, but this is way above that. Just for the record, he wouldn't meet WP:CREATIVE as a writer, or WP:PROF as a researcher, but he does meet WP:PROF as an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On Administrator Paino's behalf, I would like to thank you for contributing to his CV. By the way, this is Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia, is it not? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little mystified as to the claims that this is a large or major university. It has 6,000 students, of whom fewer than 300 are postgraduates. Is that large? I don't think so. It's actually pretty, if not very, small as universities go. I'm not going to express an opinion as to deletion, but let's not make inflated claims about this university's size. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A debate on "large" is an irrelevant distraction. As a public (state) university, this institution is "major" for the purposes of WP:PROF c6. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No, it's a valid point. It is in no way irrelevant. Your second point appears to be based purely on your own interpretation. Nowhere does it say that all public universities are covered. I'm curious as to where you think it says that public university = major institution. Particularly since in many (if not most) countries all or nearly all universities are public. To my thinking, a "major" institution is one that is very large or has a significant research base. 6,000 students is not very large and fewer than 300 postgraduates is not a significant research base. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The record of academics' AfDs shows a very broad consensus that US public universities qualify in this way. For context, the debate you're describing here actually takes place much farther down the "food chain", e.g. at the level of the small religious institution (yeshiva, bible college, etc.). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Odd that we debate whether sizeable Indian and Chinese universities should even have articles (in the opinions of some editors they shouldn't have because they're "not notable"), but there is apparently a consensus that presidents of even small American universities should have articles, is it not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your wanting to debate the guidelines themselves here is veering pretty far off-topic. We're only really discussing notability of Paino. A growing raft of "keeps" seem to indicate that he is – again, not surprising under the guidelines as they stand at the moment. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I don't want to "debate the guidelines" - I made a comment on an incorrect statement (that this was a "large" university, which it is clearly not), as was clearly stated before my comment. You were under no obligation to answer it and you are under no obligation to continue to do so! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. We'll consider this thread closed then. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- This is a very poor article, but a university president is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Yaquinto[edit]

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

The subject of this entirely unsourced BLP did not actually win a Pulitzer, at least not according to Pulitzer itself. This bio seems to be a hoax, but assuming she's a real professor, she facially fails WP:PROFESSOR solidly. JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's get real - the nominator of this article has meticulously gone through the list of articles I have created and nominated numerous ones for deletion, most of which have existed for a long period of time and some of which have PREVIOUSLY been put to a vote. This nomination is gross incompetence and disregard for the process and is motivated by some animus stemming from a separate issue. Marilyn won her Pulitzer as part of the team covering Rodney King. Google it. This nomination is frivolous. Adamc714 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question — Why do you suppose the Pulitzer website doesn't contain any mention of her? I searched and found several other winners' names. What team was she on, and did Yaquinto herself win the Pulitzer? Other AfD nominations for other articles aren't very relevant here. That said, if I think any nomination of mine is a clear error, I'll gladly withdraw, as I did for one professor whose name I misspelled in searches before nominating. Let's WP:AGF, yes? Shouting incompetence isn't a great show. A reliable source would be a good start. JFHJr (㊟) 02:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - The award went to the reporting staff of the LA Times, of which she was a member. She and her fellow staff reporters won the award as a unit. I am willing to assume good faith, but that does not mean that evidence of bad faith becomes irrelevant. I'm not an expert at Wikipedia, so I don't know all of these insane bureaucratic rules. I apologize for my inability to edit at your level. However, nominating this long-standing article for deletion instead of saying "Hey, maybe you should link a better source" seems extreme. Adamc714 (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above answer makes it abundantly clear that this person did not, in fact, win a Pulitzer price (which would have established notability beyond any doubt). No other evidence that she meets WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If joint awards are invalid, then I would appreciate if some would scrub any reference of the Nobel Prize from everyone who ever won it jointly. Look, that specific prize is awarded to reporting staffs exclusively. She was on the staff and contributed to the works that won the prize. The prize is a validation of her merit as a journalist, and I think the average person would find even a tangential claim to a Pulitzer to be a notable career accomplishment. You can't just arbitrarily draw lines to decide when joint awards do and do not count as notable, especially when I can't find any rule about notability that supports that type of reasoning. Adamc714 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would gingerly suggest that there might be a slight difference between 2 or 3 persons jointly winning a Nobel Prize (which will then list the name of every single winner on their website and each such winner is certain to be covered in multiple newspaper articles, radio/TV shows, etc.) and being member of a whole team that gets an award (after which the awarding organization just lists the name of the team and we cannot find any sources that confirm that this person won said award). The Nobel Peace Prize has several times been awarded to groups (as opposed to sharing one between 2 or 3 people, as often happens in the sciences). And I think the CERN team has once gotten a Nobel in physics. As far as I know, these prizes are not mentioned in any single biography of any person who at some point was a member of said groups. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously my Nobel Prize example was hyperbole. However, my central point remains: I think the proper way to think about this issue is to say, "Would an objective, reasonable person find it notable that Marilyn was on a staff team that won a Pulitzer?" I think the answer to that question is "yes". This is simply a function of how the award works, and I think your average person would find it notable that she was on a Pulitzer-winning team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not an objective, reasonable person, but my answer to the question is "no". Unless it could be shown that she had a leading role in this team, I would not even mention something like this in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The award is not given for leading the team; the award is giving for contributing to the team.Adamc714 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The award was apparently given to the LA Times staff for spot reporting. Not, apparently, to any particular teams of individuals. See this. JFHJr (㊟) 21:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty. Ray^Talk 12:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- she was a member of a team of reporters that was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, and that is worth something (it makes the newspaper pass GNG in itself), but not enough to pass GNG or WP:PROF herself. This forum can be too hard on academics working in fields that do not produce research that can be indexed by number of citations, true, but in general an assistant professor at a middle-tier ranked school does not pass the average prof. test and I do not see anything except being a non-individually cited member of the Pulitzer-winning team to push her above that bar. In four or five years, quite possibly, but not now. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prize was the 93 prize, for reporting during the 92 riots, when she was 1 year out of journalism school. The likelihoodo f her having made a substantial contribution was pretty low. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior academic and former reporter who was a member of a team that won a journalism prize. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to above observations. Only "source" in article seems to be her CV. Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Adrian Donohoe and Adrian Donohoe[edit]

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

Delete: Questionable notability. Is every police officer killed in the line of duty in every country on earth notable per se and worthy of his or her own Wikipedia article? Of course not. I know this article was created some time ago but I just came across it. Quis separabit? 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, so must the Adrian Donohoe related article. Quis separabit? 22:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guy got a state funeral. Seems rare for Ireland. Shii (tock) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep In Ireland, at least in recent decades, this is rare and a matter of national concern--and at least somer previous ones have had extended public and political interest for many years. I do not know if this is true for all of them. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a very odd deletion nomination. Look at this from the BBC News World Europe section, dated two days ago, five months after it happened. If there are objections to articles on police officer deaths, as the nominator suggests, this isn't the one I would start with. --86.40.192.222 (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very odd deletion nomination. Look at this from the BBC News World Europe section, dated two days ago, five months after it happened. -- This AFD was initiated at least two days before that, but the article in question is insufficient to make me withdraw the nomination, but I am open to doing so should an argument so convince me. None of the rationales so far does (i.e. "this is rare and a matter of national concern--and at least somer previous ones have had extended public and political interest for many years").Quis separabit? 22:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage with international aspects, backed by reliable sourcdes, therefore easily meets WP:GNG. No valid deletion rationale provided by nominator. Dl2000 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: if this article stays then the family or kin or admirers, whatever, of any slain police officer whose death gets coverage in their own nation, has the right, at least in principle, to an article for that officer. We should not be respectors of national parochialism. Some editors will create articles, particularly hagiographies or homages, based on nationalist reasons, that would otherwise not have been created. That is why the hagiographic article is called Death of Adrian Donohoe, not the Bellurgan Credit Union Robbery. The article is about a Gardai killed during a local robbery. It is tragic that the young man lost his life but not encyclopaedic. Quis separabit? 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This has nothing to do with rights or wrongs or family or kin - it passes the WP:GNG by a long shot [no pun intended]. (2) This has nothing to do with national parochialism - it continues to feature in international news reports five months after it occurred. (3) It is probably not called "Bellurgan Credit Union Robbery" because the robbery of a credit union is not where the notability and long-term coverage lies. (4) It is probably called "Death of Adrian Donohoe" to match "Death of Jerry McCabe" and "Deaths of Henry Byrne and John Morley" - it was in fact originally called Adrian Donohoe. See Category:Deaths by person - this is the usual naming convention. (5) "Local robbery" is inaccurate - it occurred near a contentious international border over which the killer is suspected to have fled.

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

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

The result was redirected to Autopista AP-36. Deletion is not necessary or advised as this title is a plausible search term. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autopista Ocaña – La Roda[edit]

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

I mentioned this on the talk page for this article before I put in the request for the article's deletion, but anyway...

There already exists an article on the Autopista Ocaña – La Roda: Autopista AP-36.

Bluebird207 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audacity, Inc. (advertising agency)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable corporation, previously speedy deleted, created by a WP:SPA user who's edit history consists entirely of editing and linking to this article.

The only remotely notable detail is that the agency was awarded "2nd place" in an advertising agency industry award event. The organization that hosts the awards does not have a Wikipedia article and doesn't seem particularly notable. The rest of the article includes only basic information about the business and doesn't establish significant third-party coverage or demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently notable to have it's own article

While the article appears well-sourced at first:

two of the sources are press releases
two of the sources are a (duplicated) interview about the founder teaching at San Diego State which only make trivial references to the agency.
three of the remaining sources are used for trivial details about the agency's location and mission statement.

I also want to note I just removed a page used as a source which contained an active malware threat (the site appears to be in French and I didn't stick around to verify if it supported the information it was used to source). Be warned if you try to check it.

The author seems to think the article meets notability and depth of coverage guidelines. I leave it to AfD. Some guy (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. I found a few other sources, but nothing very in-depth, and very little by unrelated parties. The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 20:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; but fwiw, the article is slightly improved over the earlier speedy-deleted version, which also contained a list of clients. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because I deleted the list of clients. Some guy (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, cheeky promo piece. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to a redirect. Mkdw ^talk 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Addison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been recreated twice since the last AFD but this doesn't qualify for G4. What it does fail is WP:GNG and clearly lacks the required reliable sourcing to survive. If this closes as delete, please can the closing admin salt the page as we have multiple recreations here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG as well as other suitable SNGs (ANYBIO, NMODEL, PORNBIO). Cavarrone (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. My search for reliable source coverage yielded a brief article in XBiz. No real claim of notability per NMODEL or PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the various sound analyses above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said by other she fails the relevant guidelines. We should not have articles on people that are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this article was deleted a year ago and no one has presented any reason to change that outcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets because that seems to be her only real notability outside of her porn career, as she has never been nominated for anything major (Twistys Treat notwithstanding). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bushell[edit]

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

No particular claim of notability made. There were lots of convicts transported to Australia, and I'm not sure what makes Bushell special. Bazonka (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fascinating article, based on a reliable source. But what about notability? I thought I was going to have to argue that one source is enough and the WP:GNG guidelines are inappropriate in cases like this. However, to my delight, I have found a good-looking online source, citing Margaret Brown's article, but giving other references and providing more information.[2] When I have time I'll edit this in. How was he special? He was transported and then hanged ~~for murder~~ and is still being written about 150 years later. Thincat (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't hanged for murder but for attacking a prison officer. Thincat (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — See also Adams, Simon (2009). The Unforgiving Rope: Murder and Hanging on Australia's Western Frontier. UWA Publishing. pp. 123–25. ISBN 1921401222.. It discusses Brown's coverage, which appears already in the article. JFHJr (㊟) 23:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article for one of colonies most incorrigible prisoners.Hughesdarren (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historic figure of academic interest. Sometimes I wonder if this is an encyclopedia or a compendium of biographical material on flash-in-the-pan 21st-century celebrities and porn stars, of whom there are also "lots" but few of whom seem to encounter this level of scrutiny regarding what makes them "special." --86.40.192.222 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fact that he has been the subject of an academic study seems to make the article worth having. HOwever apart from that he was clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An interesting subject is not necessarily a notable subject, and this is being confused here. Also, the academic study on Bushell seems to be little more than a case study on a convict - I don't know why out of all the convicts Bushell was chosen for this study but it could have been a random selection. In any case, I'm not sure that one study meets WP:SIGCOV. Bazonka (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Santa Claus#Parades, department stores, and shopping malls. If anyone wants to merge anything after finding sources, I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas grotto[edit]

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

Deprodded and ((unreferenced)) removed without comment. No sources found, just a dicdef with WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep "He's making a list, he's checking it twice; he's gonna find out who's naughty and nice..." Warden (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE. What's your rationale? You've been here long enough to know this. Ansh666 00:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject of mall Santas and the culture of having children visit them with their requests for gifts as part of the shopping experience certainly seems notable. The movie Bad Santa parodied the tradition. Is there a better title for it? Santa's lap? Mall Santa? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Claus#Parades, department stores, and shopping malls (where Mall Santa redirects) as WP:CONTENT FORK. Ansh666 00:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable item in its own right. And as the Col. said, stop it or no presents in December. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's notable doesn't make it so. How is it notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote by vanished user. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ansh. A simple redirect would be too cheap, you Scrooges. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa's workshop where the subject is already covered, and which is already the redirect target of Santa's Grotto. Merge content only if it can be reliably sourced. I42 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think we should take the relevant sections out of that article, whose lead and first section (about the grotto) have basically nothing in common, to either this article, Santa's grotto, or the section I noted above. Ansh666 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acton Plaza[edit]

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

Contested prod that somehow didn't flag during my later prod. Only sources here are primary, no secondary sourcing found whatsoever. Fails notability guidelines for anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for failing WP:CORP. A slightly bigger than ordinary strip mall with no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. My searches got only directory listings and classified ads. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable strip mall. Dough 48 72 18:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. The history will remain in place in case anyone wishes to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-flower frond[edit]

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

Very minor Dungeons and Dragons monster that is not notable and fails WP:GNG, per the utter absence of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (indeed only primary sources are used). Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not real fond of AfD being used for what should be a redirect discussion, but redirect back to where it was. Hobit (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters - agreed with Hobit. BOZ (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per above. Ansh666 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons), which seems a more precise fit than the main list page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't recommend that article as an ideal merge target. It has been tagged for absence of secondary sources for almost a year, and is thus a likely candidate for a future AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Tomlinson[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable youth player. PROD declined without explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Safiel (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot - already deleted as spam. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cran[edit]

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

Non-notable business consultant lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Zdrunca[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NSPORTS as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Buckley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NSPORTS as subject hasn't played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG as subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources above the level of routine coverage. Hack (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly text book case of not meeting WP:NFOOTY and lacking any WP:SIGCOV for GNG. Mkdw ^talk 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (universities)[edit]

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

I think that this article (G5 Universities) should be removed. I can't see why the group should remain when there is virtually no (almost zero) coverage in the respected media, or any university/academic articles etc, apart from the Times Higher Education magazine. I therefore firstly can't see how the term G5 can be seen as independent. If it was a serious/actual grouping, worthy of a Wikipedia article, I believe that there must be at least some broader coverage and use of the term. I also think that this article has been used as a way of indicating these are a super-elite (term which has been used on the article in the past) group of Universities, as opposed to the actual reason given why Times Higher Education supposedly mentioned the grouping. if you look at the list of citations, almost all of the actual content comes from one single Times Higher Education Article back in 2004. I would also therefore argue that this grouping doesn't actually exist today anymore(If it ever actually existed at all), and potentially therefore also factually inaccurate. I acknowledge this has been raised before, but i think its important to note that both the nominator has been blocked for using sock puppets, and also Rangoon11 (for socks/abusive language/edit warring) who created and strongly defended the article. Happy to discuss any points with you. thanksHkong91 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC). Nomination formatted by Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was not transcluded onto the daily list until I added it.[3] Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the prior AfD to which the nominator refers was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G5 (education), which closed as "keep" on 11 December 2011. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons in the previous discussion appear valid, regardless of sock puppetry and the like. Dalliance (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a major organization, despite the less than perfectreferencing. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-I struggle to see how its a major organization. It according to just one article met in 2004, and no other media has covered it at all. It also had no permanent facilities or staff, and zero evidence of it meeting since. Instead of it being amajor organization, i'm questioning its existence. According to GNG, multiple sources are expected, this only has one. Regarding the reliability criteria, with only one source, I question how we can be sure it meets this criteria for inclusion Hkong91 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I would also like to make this information clear No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. Can a user justifying the articles inclusion please address thisHkong91 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite some SPAs that fundamentally lacked a guideline based argument, there is still no seeming appetite for anything other than keep. Mkdw ^talk 22:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of iOS e-book reader software[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is perilously close to advertising. Most of the software listed does not even merit its own wikipedia article Deb (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author of the comparison, I'd first like to state that I'm not affiliated with any of the listed software. I don't see it as advertising because it's basically a feature-based comparison which doesn't favour any of the mentioned software either. People have commented favourably upon the article and informed me how useful it was to them. The comparison also had a good rating in the feedback tool. I don't really see any good reason to delete it. Philantrop (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree that it's potentially useful, provided it's kept completely up to date at all times. The question is whether it's encyclopaedic.Deb (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's being kept up as good as time and reasonable effort permit. You'll see in the log that changes are indeed frequent. Furthermore, I'm, of course, open for suggestions. As a side-note; I would have appreciated it, btw, had you left me a note on my talk page with your concerns first. Philantrop (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that non-notable entries can be removed if that is appropriate, how does this have any unfixable problems? If your problem is with the very concept of a comparison table for various commercial products, I suggest you do a search for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of" to see how past AFDs have treated them. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Some of those debates have ended in deletion, some have not. So what? Deb (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You tell me; it's your nomination. What do you think distinguishes this one from the ones that were kept, such that it should be deleted instead of developed further? postdlf (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The ones that were kept" are irrelevant. That argument is called "stuff exists". Any article may or may not be deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, and the outcome is generally decided by who happens to participate in the debate. I happen to believe that this article is inherently unsuitable for inclusion. Deb (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure at all why you think this is "inherently" unsuitable for inclusion. The article is intended as a reference for people looking for reading software on their iOS device. On that level it is eminently successful. Its not advertising, its not commercially based: the *only* possible thing that I could see which might tweak someone's ire is the inclusion of a price listing.Kyteflyer (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deb, you're missing the point of my question, and you are talking around the subject rather than elaborating on your rationale as I am trying to get you to do. So far, you have yet to progress beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE and a CLEANUP complaint.
        Are you saying that all product comparison articles are "inherently unsuitable for inclusion"? In which case AFDs regarding other such articles are very relevant, and it's not at all persuasive to retort "OTHERSTUFF" if your argument is aimed broadly at a whole category of content that includes articles the community has already discussed and kept. If you wish to disagree with those prior AFDs, it would be helpful if you would say so expressly and address the arguments that were made in the past. If you are not trying to reach so far as to call all product comparison articles advertising in nature or violative of NOTCATALOG, then please be specific regarding what is wrong with this one in particular. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's true, I find it hard to see the point of your comments, but let me try to explain how I came at this particular article as opposed to the others that you believe are comparable. You may notice that User:NixMobilTeam made numerous recent edits to this article while trying to add credibility to the article Ubooks. I think this user name says it all, but articles like this are an invitation to the purveyors of non-notable software (and other products) to get their products into the public eye. I am not going to be going through every other article of the same type to decide whether or not they are catalogues; this one certainly is. I have a major concern that people will start to come to wikipedia looking for information to help them decide what to buy, assuming that the information in the article will always be accurate and up-to-date. You are free to disagree, as is everyone else, but please don't try to suggest that I have made this deletion nomination lightly or indeed without recourse to logic. The process requires far too much effort for me to do that.Deb (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I can judge your nomination only based on what you have articulated, not by what you may or may not have thought while you posted it. You shouldn't be surprised or put off when someone asks you to explain your rationale further. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCATALOG is a valid criticism of the article, as that policy explicitly recommends against including prices. The other major problem with the article is that the lists contain entries with no WP articles of their own. Per the policy on lists, WP:LIST, and also mentioned at the beginning in WP:NOTCATALOG, these sorts of list-based articles are for organizing and comparing other articles. Thus the products with only external links should probably be deleted from the list. A third problem is that the article doesn't seem to have an intro section or a link to a main article establishing the notability of the topic of IOS e-book readers in general. But getting rid of prices, deleting unsuitable list entries, and adding an intro are a matter of editing and all are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. I don't doubt that the topic of IOS e-book readers is notable with many articles discussing features, associated storefronts, etc. A likely notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Does NOTCATALOG mandate or just recommend against prices, as it is useful to know if the app is free, cheap or not so cheap when evaluating? It's a bit of a niche, but not that small a one... – 5.64.195.134 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a catalog, its a comparison between the various aspects of a notable type of software. Dream Focus 00:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no unfixable problems raised by the nominator nor evident from the article itself, and no problem with having such a comparison article in general. Any NOTCATALOG issues (if there are any; I think it's a stretch to liken this to a product catalog) could be fixed by removing non-notable products (though that is not always necessary so long as there is some secondary source coverage, even if that coverage falls short of meriting the product an article) or removing prices (though comparing free and non-free may also be relevant, and even prices sometimes get commented on in secondary source coverage). That's all for editors to hash out through normal processes, not a deletion concern at all (as is true of most claimed NOT violations I have seen). Finally, the nominator's concern about editors using it to "add credibility" to a particular product is an unpersuasive WP:SUSCEPTIBLE-type claim, again fixable by NPOV monitoring and editing. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful comparison table, doesn't seem promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.245.34 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well - established type of WP article. It has to be done carefully, but it does not have to include only products with a WP article of their own. Rather, this is an appropriate way of providing information without having to do an article on borderline - notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Mkdw ^talk 22:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discord (My Little Pony)[edit]

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

Discord, as with the rest of the MLP:FiM cast isn't notable enough to be split into his own article. Sorry, John de Lancie. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete what can be to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. While there seem to be a lot of sources, and several that I know are reliable and used on the other pages about the show, the bulk here about the character are from weakly reliable sites, particularly in the reception section. Most of the details (eg regarding De Lancie and the fandom) are well-established elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete The sources are just terrible so it needs to be deleted. Besides we all run into this a long time ago with the other ponies having their own entries.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the characters list per nom. "merge and delete" is not an option since it would wipe out the edit history. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the only third party sourcing is trivial mentions or not even actually about the character, but about the actions of the actor voicing the character. If there is anything properly sourced thats actually salvageable, it can be merged elsewhere if its not already covered in the appropriate target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as per Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMesquito (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, I know when an argument is futile, consensus is quite clear and any rebuttal from me at this point wouldn't do anything. Oh well; let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...! --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the character list per above. Ansh666 00:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, in agreement with the requesting user. Also, I thought that was Jason Marsden who was the voice of Discord Mewtwowimmer (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering: Why did you think Max Goof voiced Discord? dogman15 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here ya go. Ansh666 03:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I use BTVA a lot. dogman15 (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can tell That was pointed at Mewtwowimmer. Ansh666 06:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. When it comes to the MLPFIM Wikia over here, notability is whether the character influences the plotline of some episode in some way. Translating this into Wikipedia terms, notability is whether the character managed to influence something outside the show and its related paraphernalia, in this case the bronybase. Only Fools and Horses serves as an example: the characters have their own articles because they had catchphrases that weaved themselves into British culture, even the OED. As for them ponies? Not a bit yet. Having worked in the bronybase for quite a while as a vector artist, I have found out that the fandom is very self-contained, very self-sustaining.^{Though I do some non-pony stuff now and then and it gets popular on dA too.} In short, my hooves are down. Princess Parcly Taxel 03:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Merge and redirect. I don't usually support getting rid of pages, but at least redirecting will preserve the edit history of this page. I do hope that some day, an MLPFiM character can keep an article on Wikipedia. dogman15 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Subject clearly meets at least two criteria of WP:NSONGS. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outta My Head (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NSONG. One might think that the 1st criteria of NSONG is met here as the subject song has so many reviews. But note that the song on it's own doesn't have any of its standalone reviews, but are all of the complete album. Adding to it, the song has not been on any significant charts and not been a recipient of any significant award too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Outta My Head" is not a single, so standalone reviews are, quite obviously, not available. It comes from album reviews, which are, according to WP:NSONG, " the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." (Not even singles are subject to getting standalone reviews anymore). It doesn't matter if a song charts for one week at number 200 in South Korea or is number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart for 6 months, a chart is a chart. We do not decide which countries and their charts are more important than other, that undermines the whole point of charts. Furthermore, charting is not a requirement to create a song article. It doesn't matter if this song has received an award or not, it doesn't have to have had one. You've made a fool of yourself by nominating this, as I have proven:

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Y
Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.[under discussion]Y
Has won one or more significant awards or honors. It's not a single, so it would not get an award. Not even singles necessarily get awards, rightly or wrongly.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. As I said, it's not a single, so the chances of it being covered are very small.

WP:NSONG states that one must be met, and it meets two, perfectly. — AARON • ^TALK 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has charted and has enough information to have an article. I don't see the point in "it doesn't have standalone reviews", most of the singles which are hits don't have that too or have few. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I'm on the fence with this one. Come Alive (Leona Lewis song) at time of deletion (see here was more detailed than this article but had not charted hence it was ultimately merged as it was decided that the song had not received enough coverage that focussed specifically on the song, independent of the album. On that basis I'd say "Outta My Head" should be redirected and merged into Echo. Its then a question of whether the song's position at number 98 on the Slovakian airplay chart makes up for the lack of detail or independent coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charting isn't a requirement, and a national chart is fine. I still think "Come Alive" should have been kept. It's a bit contradictory for you to say that considering you wanted to keep that article too. Considering that it wasn't a single, a lot of critics wrote about it and compared it to other singers work. There's not a lack of info here, it's relevant to the song. I think you will find that if you remove the generic Background section from "Come Alive", then both articles are actually about the same length, so I dno't know why you are saying it was considerably larger and detailed. Lots of articles are shorter than this yet no one notices. — AARON • ^TALK 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually "Come Alive" was performed in promotion of the album numerous times and received a lot of coverage regarding its performances, Leona also spoke about the creation and inspiration of the song, something which has not happened with this song. On the basis that the community decided "Come Alive" should be deleted, this should be redirected and merged. Let me ask you this question, if "Outta My Head" had not charted, would you have created the article (honestly)? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Come Alive" had two production paragraphs and one critic paragraph; "Outta My Head" has one composition paragraph and two critic paragraphs.. They aren't that indifferent. I had wanted to do this article for ages, but yes the fact it charted did sway it for me because I knew what types of people there are on who ignore WP:NSONG despite this article passing. In all honesty, "Come Alive" passed it too with the first point of the criteria, and I fully supported keeping it. — AARON • ^TALK 09:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album article. Fails WP:NSONG. Pretty much all references are about the album, not the song. It's almost identical to the Come Alive case. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fail, it's meets 2 points out of 4 as I have shown above, and only one is needed. Explain yourself. All points are about the song as part. Not even singles get single reviews much anymore. This passes WP:NSONG. — AARON • ^TALK 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to the album. While I see no reason why an album track shouldn't have an article if there is sufficient encyclopedic content to justify it (I feel this is a far more sensible criterion than whether it passes WP:GNG), I'm not convinced that that's the case here. Take out the duplication both within the article and with the album article, and the brief mentions in album reviews that have been dressed up a bit in the reception section, and the content is verging on low enough to be concisely summarized in the album article. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions aren't brief though, and it's not dressed up. It passes WP:NSONG. — AARON • ^TALK 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they were any briefer, they'd be non-existent. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Songs reviews as part of an album review aren't usually paragraphs each. A fair amount of critics spoke about the song, I've seen cases of a lot less. It passes WP:NSONG, I've proven it above, so I don't see how people can argue against it. — AARON • ^TALK 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. The song's reviews as part of the album are still reviews, which is accepted as an independent published work. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J 1982 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SONG. — Diva Knockouts 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSONG HĐ (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close let's not spoil the DYK nom for this article. No problems at all. So long as it passes general notability guidelines, (which it clearly does), all the other notability guidelines can be ignored. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SONG. —→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→
Keep per Aaron.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashbygate[edit]

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

"Ashbygate" is not used in any mainstream news report. This event is covered, with reliable sources, in Peter Slipper --Pete (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Slipper where it is covered adequately. It's not really appropriate to have a separate article about allegations that were subsequently disproved in court, especially as there doesn't seem to be very much to say about them. The question of whether to redirect or delete is more complex: there's a shortage of reliable sources for the name "Ashbygate" but it's widely used in more informal and fringe media, and its connection with James Ashby is obvious for anyone familiar with the morphology of the -gate suffix. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As James Ashby is not considered notable, then why should Ashbygate? The only notability is through Peter Slipper. Redirection to the appropriate section of the article is the best course, I think, because otherwise we could wind up with contradictory versions of the same story, depending on which editors concern themselves. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not wild about the article title, but shouldn't we have an article on the whole Slipper/Ashby affair? It was certainly a major political scandal that caused the demise of the Speaker of the HOR and seriously threatened the stability of the government. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, there doesn't appear to be many sources that use the title Ashbygate. As an other has stated, the subject of the article is better covered in the Peter Slipper article, but the search term Ashbygate does not appear to be one that will be widely used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Peter Slipper. Unlike the somewhat similar Craig Thomson affair dispute, this one seems fairly straightforward: since only one person of any note, Slipper, is involved, it should be covered in his article. I take Lankiveil's point that it was a major scandal, but I'm not sure that there was enough in it to justify an entirely separate article from Slipper. Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mal Brough? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents of Endowing and Forfeiting the Titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama[edit]

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

This is clearly a WP:POVFORK of Dalai Lama, intended to "prove" the Chinese government line that, by definition, those Dalai Lama's not chosen by Beijing are illegitimate. Such a point, of course, is included in the main article, and is POV we should and do include, but having this as an article (under a POV title nonetheless) is clearly not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biased, lacking any reliable sources, no indication of notability as a topic, seemingly original research, and duplicative of existing articles: those claims which are not untrue could if referenced be included in the articles Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama and articles on the individual lamas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Advocacy article for the PRC claims; the author has made similar, uncited claims to related articles. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I consider myself a neutral party on the broader conflict) - Right now there aren't enough items to convert this into a list article, and the claims made here are better made in the articles for Thubten Gyatso and the 6th Dalai Lama if he has an article. As it stands, this article is also clearly not neutrally written, although that in and of itself is not grounds for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as POV fork, per nom. RashersTierney (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single sourced content already covered in Dalai Lama#History. Not a viable redirect. Funny ^Pika! 06:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a Chinese POV article, and far too much of it is in Chinese to be a worthwhile article in English WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. First Light (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 11:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stivasoft Hotel Booking Software Review[edit]

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

Advertising Zince34' 08:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD:G11, ~~and the article was tagged as that prior to the AfD being opened; why did you open this as well?~~ Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started filling a nomination on twinkle when this was nominated for speedy deletion. Zince34' 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I'm surprised Twinkle didn't notify you of this. You have my apologies, but obviously the CSD part of my comment stands. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was notified but I was puzzled so I let TW to nominate. Zince34' 09:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. but only just. (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 09:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed connection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced dicdef, nothing but lists. Kept at last AFD, but neither keep was policy based. I see no sources that discuss this at length, just sources that use the term in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete An obvious definition padded out like a bad high school essay. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Mangoe. I've removed the WP:OR lists, but there isn't anything encyclopedic left. Standard WP:NAD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delet per WP:Notability. User:SmartyPantsKid User talk:SmartyPantsKid —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree with comments on WP:NAD. This topic fails WP:GNG as an encyclopedic topic. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It's only 5 weeks since this was a clear keep so this seems to be case of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more applicable if the nominator had participated in the previous discussion. As it is, there is only one common participant, and the first discussion had only four participant of which one had no other edit. I don't see a problem with letting this run its course. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination makes it clear that the previous AFD was noticed. The nominator has been here for years and so ought to be well aware that the place to challenge recent closes is WP:DRV. Just starting another AFD so soon is blatant disruption. Warden (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sympathetic to the nomination and the article doesn't seem to have much there, but Warden has a point. Is there a reason this wasn't taken to DRV? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article definitely needs a better name, since most of the results come up with people missing plane flights and such. I'm not sure if the concept meets WP:N (if I had to say, I'd say yes, since there is some coverage), but under the current title it definitely doesn't. Ansh666 00:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Keep since it's been improved enough. My concern about the title stands, but I guess it works. Ansh666 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: I have raised the issue of continuing this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#Missed connection. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since we're here, we can discuss it here. I do not consider this a disruptive nomination, though it would have been better to wait 6 months than 6 weeks. If it had been taken to DR, the probably result would have been that DR is not afd2. . I do consider the article reasonable, and expandable, and sourceable. Common themes is art and life are suitable topics for articles. If it needs further content and sourcing, the solution is to write it. Of out 4 million articles, probably a few percent need deletion, but most or almost all of them need further work. Lots of WP articles start out as fairly haive essays, and then grow further. DGG ( talk ) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure This needs to be promptly closed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is nothing inherently wrong with a second AFD only six weeks later. There is nothing saying I must take this to DRV. There's far more discussion here than there was in the last AFD, so to just step right in and close it down would be counterproductive. I see no way in which my AFD is disruptive or against process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the previous AFD the nomination waved towards a policy but did not give as much as a word as to why it might apply and the "keeps" were not policy-based but they were not against policy either. The current nomination was of doubtful validity at the time it was made but the argument certainly does not apply to the currently improved article. There is now sufficient reliable-source coverage and "Unsourced dicdef, nothing but lists" is now a wholly inappropriate rationale. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I didn't realize this article was actually being improved. That so rarely occurs when people are clamoring for a "keep", ya know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly shouldn't be deleted, since this is a plausible search term. If not kept, should be redirected or disambiguated rather than deleted. Both nominations were fairly clear cases of using AfD for cleanup imo.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a damn fine article currently. I do understand the article was a lot worse when nominated, so no harm done. Looks like an AFD success story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fundamentally goes beyond a definition article surpassing any arguments for NOT or NEO. What the delete camp does not really directly contest is that GNG has been met by some very important sources. Mkdw ^talk 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I see nothing wrong with re-nominating a page after an AfD with little community participation and opinions based on non-policy based observations. Secondly, the page as it stands now is no longer a WP:DICDEF and the sources found and added to the page clearly show that it meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of reliable sources currently listed in the article. Seems to pass WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone with a history of editing outside of this area wants to merge any of it into the episode article I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy's Baking Company[edit]

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

I came across this as a PROD with the following rationale: "non-notable, self-promotion. This is a small restaurant benefitting from its post-Ramsay 15 minutes of fame and the bad behavior of its owners. Nothing remotely encyclopedic about it." I initially endorsed the PROD because I feel that this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT and that it is perhaps WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article to itself. There is no prior coverage of note for this company and so far everything that has been released about the company has centered around its showing on Kitchen Nightmares. There has been some coverage of their activities immediately after the show, which aired six days ago (May 10th), but predominantly this has been about their appearance on the show and perceived behaviors. After some deliberation, I thought that it would be better to bring this to AfD where it can get a better consensus. I still believe that this ultimately falls under "one event" since it's all from the KN appearance and there has been no coverage for this place before that time, but then there has been quite a bit of coverage since then. I'd much rather bring it here and be 100% certain that it falls under one event (since I do have some hesitations) and then have something for editors to fall back on if it gets recreated before it gets any further coverage that doesn't talk solely about the show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that we do have an article on the episode itself. If you are worried about the events immediately surrounding the episode will not be recorded somehow, this is already on Wikipedia and the episode is well covered already. For this article we should be focusing on any notability besides the episode. While that can count towards notability at the end, we should predominantly be looking at how much coverage the restaurant has received besides that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this troubles me. Obviously, it's appropriate to have an article on the Kitchen Nightmares episode entitled "Amy's Baking Company"-- something like Amy's Baking Company (TV episode). But an article on the actual business establishment (or its owners) seems premature. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't argue too hard against that. I feel silly for not thinking of that as an alternative. Have you seen the episode and feel up to writing an article for it? On a side note, I did find this blog entry on the Phoenix New Times, but I'm unsure of it as a source since it looks to be all blog and not really a RS. The ad at the top of the page for a site for sex hookups doesn't exactly give me the feeling that it's really usable. [4] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the episode article, so I suppose that this can close as nomination withdrawn, since I'll just redirect this to the episode article. I'd probably recommend keeping "episode" in the title of the article to differentiate it from an article on the actual company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it all comes down to it, isn't the episode article effectively the same as keeping this article? We're going to need to keep an eye on it to ensure that it isn't padded out with fluff not directly related to the episode, which is bound to happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It still has to show notability, but it's easier for an episode for a television show to pass notability guidelines than would a business. You have to show that the episode has had individual coverage, which this one has had for the most part. The big difference is that we would try to keep the article only about the episode and its immediate aftermath. Right now the coverage is pretty much just about the owners' reaction to the show episode (or hackers' reaction, if you believe the owners), so it's reasonable enough to include that in the article. I'm not opposed to a general discussion over this, though. I think it's better to hash this stuff out as much as possible now and have an easy answer to fall back on later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would be very uncomfortable with this being withdrawn until I, as original nominator, have the opportunity to weigh in on the whole situation. I'm also uncomfortable with a too-speedy decision making being made during a time period that is overnight for the U.S., when the editors who would have seen the episode are largely asleep. We need to slow this down considerably and give the discussion over both articles a little time.

I used the "15 minutes" metaphor for a reason. If you look at Kitchen Nightmares, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and the Food Network's comparable show Restaurant Impossible, there are probably 75-100 restaurants the three shows have worked with, none of which merit their own article. Other than the fact that the authors behaved like jackasses on social media, then lied about their accounts having been hacked, what makes a small, failing Arizona restaurant notable, or for that matter, makes the episode notable? Substance of the article? Ramsay arrives, Ramsay trashes food and restaurant, owners get defensive, Ramsay yells, owners yell back, Ramsay yells louder and gives them a reality check. It's the standard format to this point, and has been for six seasons. The only difference is that this time, the owners refused to listen, he left and they took to social media and produced a string of obscenity-laden garbage over the course of a few days. Where's the notability for either article? You take the crap on social media out of the equation, and this is just a small, insignificant restau-rant in a strip mall in Arizona, and a TV episode on ratings-challenged show, with a stunt ending designed to land at the end of the ratings sweeps period. This doesn't rise above the level of minor tabloid coverage, thus the dicey sources. It certainly doesn't merit an article, whether it be about the restaurant or the episode. --Drmargi (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to ignore the impact of the episode. If nothing else, the episode and its direct aftermath are being covered by the business journals who are looking at the "brand meltdown" effect in this case. Forbes phoenix businss journal, International Business Times.

I think it's reasonable for us to try to draw a line against including things not clearly related to the internationally broadcast episode-- try to limit coverage to their "15 mins", rather than making the business owners notable people who have a perpetual biography. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact isn't notability. They're a novelty on a slow news day, more notable for the obscenities and the lies than anything of substance. Khloe Kardashian's braces are getting comparable coverage. The electronic media, be they hard news (which is ignoring the whole thing), business news or tabloids are fickle creatures, and will move on quickly. Once they do, Amy's will quickly go out of business and its foul-mouthed owners be forgotten, while the episode becomes an asterisk in the overall history of a show that never drew more than 5 million viewers. There's simply nothing notable about either article, and I'm tempted to go nominate the episode article for deletion right now. --Drmargi (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article (actually the page existed before, but as just a redirect into Kitchen Nighmares; I didn't write the "Controversy" section and don't have an opinion on that) so I'm reluctant to vote just yet. But I mean yeah the place is notable now. It surely passes the WP:GNG. It's been covered (as a newsworthy item, not just a review) in the Washington Post, the International Business Times, Forbes, HuffPost, and basically all the local Phoenix media. And it's not done yet. That's pretty notable for a restaurant. And its deep coverage, full articles not just passing mentions. Granted its basically for one incident, but still. Per WP:CORP it passes, but per WP:1E maybe not (technically WP:1E is for individuals, but can probably apply here). Then there's the WP:BLP issue of whether we want to pile on the Bouzaglos. But if we write the article fairly I suppose that'd be OK, maybe. Dunno. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh OK I just saw Amy's Baking Company (TV episode). Hmmm I'm not sure that that's an improvement if we're going to cover the entity at all. There's more to the place then just the incident -- it's a successful bistro, and according to Phoenix Magazine it's a pretty good feed, albeit expensive, and in the interest of not making the whole enterprise look like a freak show we ought to include stuff like that, and if we shoehorn stuff like that into Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) (which already is more about the various offshoots of the TV episode than the episode itself) we might as well just keep the original title. The articles would need to be merged of course. (Also BTW and FWIW it's my understanding that we're de facto pretty easygoing regarding articles about individual restaurants -- User:Cirt, for instance, used to put up articles about real holes-in-the-wall and while I didn't much like that the articles were certainly kept; maybe that's changed, don't know. But I mean Vic's Ice Cream and yadda yadda -- sandwich shops and whatnot. Granted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a deprecated argument, but we ought to be reasonably consistent.) Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The episode article is sufficient. The restaurant and its owners are not notable, even here in Phoenix. They are in the public eye at the moment, but that will fade quickly once they go out of business. It is no different than any other social media artifact or Internet meme (Sweet Brown - oh, that is a red link). The only thing anyone will be talking about years from now regarding this will be the TV show appearance, if even that. --NMChico24 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:NOTE. — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notoriety is not notability. And this one is notorious. Restaurants that are small, but local landmarks have local notability. This one is only gained the interest of editors because of a pair of potty-mouthed owners trying to get their own back (or extend the fraud) took to social media when Gordon Ramsay walked out on them. The so-called "deep" coverage is about how to use, or in their case, not use, social media in business applications or about the latest laughing stock behavior by a couple idiots who disengaged their brains and hit the internet, with peripheral mention of the episode, and even less about the restaurant. If anything, this is a small chapter in the life of Facebook, nothing more. But notable? In no possible way. --Drmargi (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like the best response here. This isn't really a notable restaurant - temporarily becoming the subject of a great deal of internet attention isn't the same thing as lasting notability, and having its article almost entirely about the recent bad publicity seems to raise NPOV and BLP issues. Merging to Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) is a possible compromise solution, but I don't think it really works: articles on TV episodes should be about the episodes themselves, not information about people connected with them. That one's straying off-topic as it is (and raises its own notability concerns besides). Robofish (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This place doesn't deserve its own article (and if the Kitchen Nightmares episode is honest it doesn't deserve its customers). Rename the article about the KN episode to this (if it is deemed notable enough). Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event. I don't see evidence of enduring notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Localized, single event that owes its notoriety to an episode of a TV show and will be soon forgotten. Ross Fraser (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just flash in the pan -- the place is only important insofar as it was part of an episode of Kitchen Nightmares. No notability at all here. 24.131.255.12 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creator of the original redirect. I don't object to having an article on the episode, but there's no enduring notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. A thrush (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, if the article is deleted, what is the proper fate of Amy's Baking Company (TV episode)? The two articles cover sort of the same ground. My reading of most of the "delete" votes above indicates that it too should be deleted. If not, a merge with redirect may be order; but it looks to me that most commentors are indicating that both articles should be deleted. I invite the person closing to consider the intent of the commentors and, if the decision is to delete, to consider deleting both articles. Herostratus (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete both. The episode article has the same problem as this one: absent the bad behavior of the owners after the episode, the episode is entirely non-notable; with their behavior, it's WP:ONEEVENT notoriety--Drmargi (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Separate AFDs required-- only one article here has been nominated for deletion. Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) is its own article-- if it's to be deleted, nominate it, place the appropriate templates on the page, and let that process run its course. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a consensus to delete here can't be taken as a consensus to delete that article. I'd be inclined to delete it as well, but the arguments involved could be slightly different, so a separate AFD would be required. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggie though is that the episode has received quite a bit of coverage in the media. I'll have to try to go through all of the additional sources that have been added to the article for the episode since I last looked at it, but there has been coverage and the standards for TV episodes isn't exactly the same as for companies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is aware that the deletion of the episode article requires a separate AfD, but discussion of whether that should happen is inevitable here. This is a garbage in-garbage out pair of articles that should never have been created. --Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode and meltdown are notable the restaurant (by itself) is not. Therefore it should be merged into the episode article. --George100 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I think it should be deleted if it is only going to serve as a hub for the haters and yelpers to pull another reddit type lynching and blood libel. Who would really be willing to do the reverts if it comes down to that? As such it might be better just to get rid of it. If it develops noteworthy-ness beyond what has happened with Kitchen Nightmares then it can be revisited. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the big things I've been worried about, although we can't really delete based on something being a vandalism target. We can only watch and try to ensure that it doesn't turn into such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the episode article, with reservations Aside from a 2010 incident involving a review on Yelp, the business pretty much has gotten into the spotlight because of the 2013 Kitchen Nightmares episode. This alone kills the notability aspect of the article. However, I strongly disagree with some editors rationale that a TV episode article can survive a better review of notability. Many TV episodes on Wikipedia exist with references only noting the ratings and a critic review or two. THATS IT. How they survive the ridiculous scrutiny of Wikipedia is mind boggling. In order for this article to survive, there needs to be abit more meat to the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple secondary sources in the article for two things regarding the restaurant that have nothing to do with the TV episode:

Garnering positive reviews from when it was spotlighted on Check, Please!.
Gaining publicity after a blogger posted a negative review on Yelp, and one of the owners responded to it in a vitriolic manner that was deemed inappropriate by the blogger and other users.

Both of these things occurred before the Kitchen Nightmares episode, and are independently supported by secondary sources. Because of these three separate incidents, the restaurant is notable. Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? An online review from the unwashed public that any hot dog stand can get (and better), and a minor regional PBS restaurant show gives this article sufficient notability? This is an article in search of an excuse to keep it. --Drmargi (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The online review is not the source, nor the reason for notability. It's the publicity the restaurant received because of the way the owner responded to it, which was covered by KTVK, which I made clear above. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? There's nothing notable about this "restaurant" in any way. The only thing notable here is the episode of Kitchen Nightmares. A jellyfish could see that. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, almost half of the material in the History section has nothing to do with the KN episode. Nightscream (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple articles from the Washington Post for an Arizona restaurant is notability.[5][6] And the Huffington Post. [7] And the Philadelphia Business Journal [8]. And Forbes [9]. That's a lot. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of people who misbehave. Not all of them warrant a wikipedia article - and the keyboard warriors who latched on to this don't need another forum to rail against them. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to episode. Not notable. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amy's Baking Company (TV episode), don't simply delete as this article has useful sources. But restaurant is not notable outside of context of show. --George100 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable in 2010 when they decided to respond to yelp comments. There's a lot they've done to their reputation beyond the episode. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond the episode they did, they are definetely noteworthy in their own right. Merging it into the 'Reactions' section of the article for the episode itself would be clutter. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. George100 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Reddit kerfuffle does not confer notability, but the the dozens of other articles about the restaurant do. I've got some pretty strong deletionist tendencies, but this AfD doesn't make any sense to me. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still a 'redirect to episode article' !vote, but I must admit, the amount of sustained news coverage has surprised me, particularly in how the focus has shifted beyond the episode to things like on-going legal proceedings. This may, perhaps, merit a RELIST to see if the news coverage is going to die down or pick up. My gut still says REDIRECT, however. --08:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Merge any 'aftermath' issues into the tv show article and just summarize. we don't need a blow by blow account of every tweet, fb post, amy and samy's trouble with the law, etc. Soosim (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. with all of the action around this, it is a cultural event worth documenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.202 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Egocentrismo Crítico[edit]

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

Not notable. Dot-com that is looking forward to getting a domain name as soon as possible, so is on Wordpress only. No independent sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 05:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I tagged it as a speedy since it is a non-notable website/blog and I was unable to find any sourcing that disproved that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I probably could have tagged it with a G11 as well- the tone is fairly promotional in nature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - zero notability and the "article" reads like an advert. Stalwart111 06:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (It is a website/blog from Maracaibo, Venezuela. And like other blogs and websites from other parts of the world published right here on the Wikipedia in English, it has the deserved right to stay in the Encyclopedia.) --Andreserm (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreserm (talk • contribs)

That other articles exist is not a very good reason for keeping this one. To be included, the subject needs to be notable which usually means it needs to meet the general notability guidelines. Do you have examples of "significant coverage" of the site in reliable sources? Stalwart111 09:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam and being purely non-notable. Andreserm's argument carries no weight either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Sjoman[edit]

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

article appears to not establish notability Stephane34 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:44, 1 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 · · 01:44, 8 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, L Faraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - okay, I'll bite. I tried searching for a few variations of his name but couldn't find anything. The sources in the article are his own book-publishing company (publishing his own books), a blog and an article by him not about him. I can't see any way he would meet WP:AUTHOR and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG, I'm afraid. Stalwart111 06:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding WP:RS references (either to Norman Sjoman or Naramani Somanath) to indicate the subject's notability. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is well established and cited. This user has suspicious behavior. This user has never contributed to a single article, and has nominated five different pages for AfD (all yoga teachers) Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. It is possible this is a single purpose account, and the purpose is to delete competitors in the Yoga industry. One of the entries she nominated for AfD Geeta Iyengar, the Los Angeles Times calls "the world's leading female yoga teacher." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not really how it works. The nominator may very well have nominated a series of related articles and some might be notable. But the fact that other nominated articles might be about notable subjects has no real bearing on this one, where notability is certainly not "well established". Can you provide any reliable sources that might allow the subject to meet WP:GNG? Stalwart111 22:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This person in this article has written half a dozen or so books (all cited with ISBN numbers) and also this person was mentioned in half a dozen or so books written by others (again with ISBN numbers). Which of the sources is not reliable? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, passing mentions aren't significant coverage. Of the "references" provided, some are by the subject, not about him, some are passing mentions (or don't mention him at all) and a couple are broken links. Again, several searches brought up nothing of use. I'm happy to consider sources if they exist, but I'm not seeing much there at the moment. Stalwart111 14:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable reference which shows his notability. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. g7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa (band)[edit]

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

Aside from a few YouTube links, a Google search fails to connect any of the supposed band members with this band in particular, its supposed claim to fame. Seems to fail WP:BAND for lack of sources. FallingGravity (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead singer was Zoe Pollock, who appears in Google search and has her own Wiki entry. Her single "Sunshine on a Rainy Day was released in 1991 and it became a Top 10 hit in in the UK. See Zoë (singer). Frankandwendy (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources that connect Zoe to this band? FallingGravity (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper article from 1988 with Zoe Pollock named photo with rest of band, unfortunately The Scotsman newspaper has not made their archives from 1988 available online, hence no Google activity. The following link takes you to a copy of the article: Facebook link. Frankandwendy (talk) 14:24, 9 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, L Faraone 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's evaluate its claim to notability; having one notable singer isn't enough per WP:BAND (and having the odd notable touring member, or a notable artist who performed with them a couple of times, doesn't count to WP:BAND either - they have to be part of the band). There is absolutely no evidence of the band ever releasing an album in the article, let alone anywhere else. There's no evidence of this band charting, either with singles, or with EPs. There is absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, let alone in-depth, non-trivial coverage; thus, the band fails WP:GNG. The article is quite heavily promotional/spammy, with plenty of peacock terms filling it. The fact that the band doesn't appear to have released any media on CDs or cassettes, given their active time frame, is also a good (but obviously imperfect) indication that the band is non-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.author agrees to deletion Frankandwendy (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the article you mentioned and could add some info to the Zoe Pollock article, then this article could be redirected there. FallingGravity (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found anything on Google to support the article, moreover there is nothing at Allmusic, which is the least I expect. Bluidsports (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ojai Bums[edit]

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

Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Lacks any reviews. Sourced only by imdb. I found anothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another look says the garden is centred on Devin Neil Oatway and not Ojai Studio Artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With no coverage in reliable sources, this one fails WP:NF on all counts. The walled garden should have its other parts sent to AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 8 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, L Faraone 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM due to the lack of any RS covering it, let alone any in-depth coverage. No evidence of any awards, and the cast appears to be quite lacking in notability as well. The fact the article states it was an "ultra-low budget" film is another nail in its coffin, as these sorts of films rarely turn up RS coverage anywhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (slightly altered by Mkdw to parse properly on AFD tool)[reply]

2,300,675 (number)[edit]

Moved to 2,300,675[edit]

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

Umm... umm... what? If there's any reason this number is notable, it's not given in the article. Ignatz mice•talk 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been moved to 2,300,675 per WP:PRECISION. Ignatz mice•talk 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands, it is useless trivia about a random number. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What, no 2,300,674 or 2,300,676? Bizarre. Oh, and delete the post-move redirects too. Stalwart111 06:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if this qualifies as indiscriminate or WP:NOT number directory. Mkdw ^talk 06:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A proof exists that all numbers are interesting, but this would appear to show that the proof is defective. Mangoe (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously this is the number of times this article would have to be recreated and deleted before everybody gave up and let it stick around. Only 2,300,674 Afds more to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now how would you go about saying that while also being WP:NICE? Or do you feel entitled just because it's a deletion discussion? Praemonitus (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with civility here. I see more a problem with disruptive behavior on Adamc's part, as he's done that on a few AfDs now. Ansh666 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious: Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior. This statement has certain implications that go beyond a mere explanation of AfD procedure. I didn't find it to be civil. Perhaps he intended to write, "Cursory comments in AFD discussions without any rationale carry little weight"? Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a valid encyclopedic subject. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Was this a joke? Otherwise, per nom and Stalwart. JFHJr (㊟) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure, but don't think this meets WP:NUMBER. I don't think the fact that it's an odd number is particularly "interesting". Ansh666 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopaedic. Just as we don't have articles for every soldier in Napoleon#s armies, we don't have articles for every number - as numbers are only limited by infinity, we couldn't. 'Interesting' and 'encyclopaedic' aren't the same anyway. Lots of things interest mathematicians but not the rest of us... I've deleted the one redirect I found as an implausible redirect. Adam c714 is autoblocked at the time of posting this, and I consider Toddst1 quite justified and not impolite. I see this article at best as a test, and more likely as extracting the Michael. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and deleted the main article as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Peterson[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, looks like the subject is trying to promote himself on Wikipedia as if it were myspace. Koala15 (talk) 22:19, 8 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, Courcelles 03:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable artist of a non-notable band; his solo career is equally unspectacular. Limited RS coverage (the Allmusic link to his album hasn't got a review in it, the Chicago Tribune coverage is OK, but isn't enough on its own, without any other coverage, especially as it is a local paper in this circumstance.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peat Moss (band)[edit]

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

The creator of this page is obviously trying to promote his old gararge band. Koala15 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 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 May 8. Snotbot t • c » 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally placed a PROD on the article to give it a chance. Because of the unexplained PROD removal, I'm inclined to !vote delete. As stated earlier, the article did not appear to meet WP:BAND and a WP:BEFORE search did not reveal any obvious WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 06:24, 9 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, Courcelles 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable band with one notable musician, although Allmusic did review the album, it's not what you'd call lengthy. Fails GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in RS, and there is no evidence of the band passing any part of WP:BAND. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Allmusic is pretty much bottom of the barrel as far as reliable sourcing and any indication of actual notability. Even considering that source, though, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are out of reach because of the paucity of solid coverage by squarely reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 01:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journey (film series)[edit]

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

I would like to determine a consensus as to whether or not Wikipedia should have a film series article for two films. In my experience, the threshold to have a film series article is to have three realized films. (If Journey 3 was in production, I would not put this topic up for AfD, but there has been no real news since the announcement of plans for a third film in March 2012, over a year ago.) The existing film series articles are pretty much three or more films, and these have been justified by myself and others as a way to aggregate content from individual topics. Such articles are a way to see how films compare to each other in terms of recurring characters, box office performance, critical reception, and high-level analysis. I believe that three films is the appropriate threshold because with that minimum, the article becomes a distinct location for comparing across that many films and more. In contrast, a mere film and its sequel can easily compare by saying in the sequel's article how it did compared to the original film. Maybe my argument is too convoluted, and this should not matter. I'd like to hear what others think. For what it's worth, if a third film did begin production, I would support a film series article since it would meet the threshold. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i have already stated, i believe that this article should under NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE DELETED, as it still has elevant information for the reader, and also means theat they don't have to vist both the articles. Josh Hutcherson has stated that he IS filming a Journey 3, so there will be a third film. Besides, what is the real issue with just letting this article continue existance? Why do we have to get into a stupid debate about trivial how many films counts as a film series rubbish? Just let this article be, as it still is a bonus over not exitsting. Frogkermit (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frogkermit, the issue is one of redundancy. A film series article can provide both comparative coverage and coverage of the series as a whole. If there are just two films, then the sequel article is sufficient for comparing it to the previous film. One independent case of these films not being officially grouped as a series is a lack of a franchise page for the Journey films where the three Santa Clause films have one here. I don't know if there are any policies or guidelines that directly apply to this situation since obviously the individual films are independently notable. Some editors may want the whole series to be covered to warrant this article, but I think that an acceptable minimum is to aggregate the content of three films. I would like to see what others have to say. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to me we really wouldn't be losing much. I don't think anyone would dispute that two films constitute a "series", the question is what unique perspective can such an article offer by comparing just two films? As Erik points out articles about sequels compare them to the predecessor anyway, and elaborate on which actors reprised their roles etc, so the sequel article as rule covers the same ground as the series article. It's difficult to envisage what would go into this article that shouldn't go into Journey 2: The Mysterious Island. Series with three films have an inherent complexity that series with two films don't have: for a start each film can be compared to two other films, as opposed to just two films compared with each other; rather than just having some actors returning and others not like with a single sequel, you often have recurring actors throughout a series, so a series article is the best way of tracking who has appeared in what. The third film does complicate this to an extent, but if we abide strictly by WP:NFF then the third film isn't eligible for an article yet; speculation about the sequel can simply go in the Journey 2 article as well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 9 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, L Faraone 03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Mohit[edit]

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

Not notable, no valid sources other than "Farhad's resume" in "Business Week e.biz personalities", date is 5 June 2000. IHT link is broken, Company profile on SiliconIran is invalid. FeralOink (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this BizRate Exec Pleads Guilty to DUI (Los Angeles Times, Oct 2000)

"His company has attracted millions from investors, but Farhad Mohit's credit is so bad he had trouble getting a car loan. He was kicked out of his West Hollywood ..."

and a very nicely composed interview in The Iranian (Sept 2003). Despite making disrespectful comments about his father (who is a physician, he says) and his girlfriend (not a virgin, he says) and celebrating Christmas (sigh...), he appears to have been notable, though I am at a loss to phrase anything in a positive manner. He was interviewed by the New York Times, Gripe harnesses social media for user complaints (29 May 2011):

"Gripe attempts to give all of its users a powerful persona by displaying the user’s “word of mouth” power. Mr. Mohit’s personal word-of-mouth power, as of last week, was "1,644,483 people." This number is displayed prominently by the app and can be shown to recalcitrant store owners. It turns out, however, that Gripe arrives at word-of-mouth power by adding together the friends of one’s Facebook friends and the followers of one’s Twitter followers. This greatly inflates the actual number of people who are likely to see a gripe or a cheer, which by default goes out only to one’s immediate friends and followers. From the vendor’s perspective, a small number of complaining customers who use social media receive disproportionate attention. This is “social bullying,” in the opinion of Ashutosh Roy, the chief executive of eGain, which provides customer service products for its corporate clients."

This is Farhad Mohit's current profile in CrunchBase

"Farhad leads an active social and philanthropic life. He is a TED Patron..."

He recently blogged about not vaccinating his daughter because he lives in Los Angeles, not Iran and raised 2.5 mil to expand his positivity network (TechCrunch, Mar 2013).

Input or advice from other Wikipedia editors would be appreciated!

--FeralOink (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment the only good source, the Times article is about his company not him--and not even really that --it's more of an essay about social media and consumer complaints--an very interesting essay, btw, and with considerable relevance to WP and COI. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the original author, PrinceOfPersia, when I initiated the nomination for deletion. His talk page showed every sign of him being a patient and well-meaning contributor. I wanted to give him a chance to weigh in on this, if he should choose to do so. --FeralOink (talk) 23:39, 4 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 · · 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy is a determined dean of self-promotion but the results show in publications: The Complete Internet Marketer briefly describes his work in the founding and growth of Bizrate.com.[10] CIO magazine in 1998 goes into detail regarding Mohit's role in founding BizRate.[11] Business Week magazine profiled Mohit in 2000 in a few paragraphs dedicated to him: They say he was born "Feb. 24, 1969, Tehran" and that his education "BS in math and computer". Venture capitalist Robbert Kibble is quoted saying "Farhad had this tremendous energy and intensity for his vision. I was instantly excited." The piece says Mohit's business idol is business author John Hagel III, and so on. It shows a photo of him with his mother and sister, not with business associates. In 2001 Network World magazine gave Mohit some detailed coverage:[12]. The Gale encyclopedia of e-commerce describes Mohit's role in founding BizRate on page 659: "In June of 1996, at the age of 27, Farhad Mohit founded BizRate to help consumers find trustworthy and competent vendors in an increasingly complex online marketplace." I think it would be remiss of Wikipedia to strike this bio. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The wording shows the reliability of that particular publication. I think it would be remiss of WP to be equally indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 9 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, L Faraone 03:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per DGG and nom. Significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources is lacking. JFHJr (㊟) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sewersam[edit]

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article - SewerSAM. — Egghead06 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever. — daranz [ t ] 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability in the unreferenced article and no evidence found from searches. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did a google search and found no reference of this software. It may exist but is not yet notable enough to warrant its own article. Gsingh (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There's no coverage in unrelated reliable sources of this subject, so it fails WP:GNG readily. Coverage aside, I love the vagueness of the text. JFHJr (㊟) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMask[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable rapper, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of pr non reliable sources and claims of notability by association. maybe a redirect may work here but TNT is best to get rid of spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you, it shouuld be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 7 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, Courcelles 23:14, 8 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, L Faraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Foundation Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable foundation, with wording leaning towards promotional. Only sources referenced are primary. Couldn't find any third party sources. Vaca tion 9 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found via Google, and the article looks like either a severe WP:COI problem or an outright copyright violation, using phrases such as "our membership". Huon (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 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, L Faraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the comments regarding the promotional/COI nature of the edit history. These problems can theoretically be remedied, and should not be factors in this discussion, but they do explain why the article exists at all. That said, it fails WP:GNG as to substantial coverage by unrelated parties, and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. JFHJr (㊟) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advert p b p 23:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Barrueta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Long-time teacher whose only notability is being inducted into the National Teachers Hall of Fame. (Most of the inductees listed do not have articles. Being inducted does not make someone inherently notable.) The article, as it stands, is completely unreferenced. The only source given is the (no longer live) announcement of her selection, which does nothing other than list her honors and achievements.[13] There are a few random G-news hits in the local newspaper from when she was selected and a few random Google books that mention her in passing. But I'm not seeing anything that makes me think this is an appropriate topic for an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. B (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'll repeat what I wrote in the first nomination which closed as a Keep since I believe nothing has changed since then: "There are only a few ways that a secondary or primary school teacher can obtain national notability, but one of them is a selective National Hall of Fame with significant people (former governors, etc.) on the board of trustees. DGG's logic (he argued for keep) is sound here." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about that confers inherent notability? This would seem to be the very definition of WP:1E. There is absolutely nothing notable here other than one award. --B (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E refers to a single momentary act of prominence. Being selected for a national honor of this sort comes from a long period of notable work within the field. It can be very hard for us to judge reliably when an educator is doing notable work that is greatly above the sort of work that all decent educators engage in. This is why we err on the side of caution on AfD for educators by usually deleting. But notability is not a wikipedia-in-a-bubble judgment; we always rely on outside agencies to show us what is being recognized and being reported. Those outside agencies can be media, such as the New York Times, universities (distinguished professor appointments), academic journals, Pulitzer prize committees, or, in the case of educators, the national teacher hall of fame. Being mentioned in "a few random Google books" is far above the norm for teachers. The National Executive Council on the teaching of foreign languages appointment is another such recognition (it would be nice to have an RS cite for that but given the teaching Hall of Fame award, I am assuming good faith there). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Laudable, but this honor doesn't automatically confer sufficient notability. Perhaps a List of Inductees into the National Teachers Hall of Fame instead of individual articles on people unknown outside a particular community. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NTHF induction is not really so much a single event, as a recognition of multiple accomplishments: that is, it shows that she has been noted, and therefore is notable. And I think that her NTHF profile together with this profile in the Washington Post (note: although likely triggered by the NTHF, it's not the same as the Post's story about the NTHF induction, which appeared a month earlier) provide sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. This 1996 book citing her as an example of a highly successful teacher also seems relevant to me, although I can't see more than a snippet to tell how deep its coverage goes, and this obituary may also be acceptable as a reliable source despite its lack of formal publication, as the author is a recognized expert in Spanish (named professor at a major university). We have very few articles about beloved high school teachers, for good reason: in most cases their notability is very local. But I think she could be one of the exceptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 11 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, L Faraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NTHF induction imparts notability (IMNSHO). Eeekster (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to Wikipedia policy, NTHF induction does not impart notability. Notability is imparted by having multiple reliable secondary sources discussing the person or the person's work (WP:GNG). Also, the person fails WP:TEACHER. LK (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass the GNG, given sources discussed in the course of this discussion. NHTF, Washington Post, etc. There is a difference between people notable only for one event, and people who only come to public attention once for enduring work of a lifetime - applying 1E in this case would be a travesty. Ray^Talk 14:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This subject's award/honor does not approach WP:ANYBIO levels; nothing about it confers automatic notability. Multiple instances of coverage by parties unrelated to the award giver and recipient would be more convincing. But it isn't there, in this case. Otherwise, she horribly fails at WP:PROFESSOR as well as WP:GNG. The 1996 book is not in-depth coverage: one mention in over 280 pages. Votes based on this kind of coverage should be discounted sharply. JFHJr (㊟) 20:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said at the first AfD, " National Teachers hall of fame is exactly the sort of thing which makes for significance, in this or any other topic. it's a major national award, and she is on their website. " The major national award in a profession is notability. This is totally in accord with the general principle of WP:N -- WP doesn't judge notability , we judge whether the outside world has recognized the notability. This can be done by implication from several substantial references, but it can also be done directly by a major national prize. Those qualified to judge have judged, and we just record that. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symon (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, No reliable sources are there at all. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Any of the films the actor has acted in don't have articles on them, either. smtchahal^(talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to keep. The press media, no matter how seemingly un-notable, cannot be questioned for its reliability (not much in a literal sense). Besides, I did realise that WP:NACTOR was only an additional criteria, and if any of the criteria points are met, the topic is likely to be notable. Those newspapers do make worthy mentions of this actor and if so, the topic should be notable. smtchahal^talk 02:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR per sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the source links to English using Google Translate and I got this. They don't very clearly assert significance of the topic, but just talk about other things and people while mentioning an actor called Simon (or Symon). Googling shows up absolutely nothing.

WP:NACTOR criteria:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Nope. None of the films are, by any means, notable or even mentioned clearly in any of the sources.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The sources don't say so.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This one is obviously false. The actor is not the main subject in any of the sources given. smtchahal^(talk) 09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is well aware how effective Google translate is, I guess! Anyway, this is an indepth coverage talking about how the actor started his career. This one is talking about his recent films as well as praising his works. Films, where he acted as the lead hero, like Ji Huzur,Poramon have been big hits according to the sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I need to rely on you that those links indeed suggest that the person is notable, because Google Translate is not at all helpful for that and I don't know Bangla. smtchahal^(talk) 12:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:RS, no sources are there at all to support WP:NACTOR. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmzayeem is trying to assert that the given sources are reliable, and both of us clearly disagree. Three of the given sources show posts from the Bengali newspapers Manabzamin and Kaler Kantho, which might be considered to be reliable sources. However, the newspapers themselves are not very notable, as is apparent in the Wikipedia articles on them. One thing I know is, Google searches of the actor's name — both in English and Bengali — turn up nothing useful. smtchahal^(talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is English Wikipedia, his article is welcome in Bengali WIkipedia, but if kept here, only with notable coverage in English. Bengali newspapers are not sufficient. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia of the whole world written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

User:Faizan Al-Badri, see the above comment by Phil and WP:NONENG! Smtchahal, the newspapers are widely circulated in Bangladesh, as for google search, the English search won't show up much since its a western name and most of the results would be of those from western countries. The google search in Bangla shows quite a few sources. Besides, you may seek translations from any of these Wikipedians.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:22, 10 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, L Faraone 02:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom, per SMT. I can't find significant coverage of him biographically (WP:ANYBIO), or any indication his roles were significant in any movie that might approach notability (WP:NACTOR). JFHJr (㊟) 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources identified above? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His films, Ji Huzur, Pora Mon are notable, per these sources, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not entirely suffice WP:NACTOR. Even not considering the fact that a few of those links don't work, the other sources don't suggest that the person has a large fan base; nor that he has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the field of entertainment, which is acting in this case. All the sources suggest is that the actor has acted in a few films that are considerably notable, but by no means seem to assert that the actor has made significant contribution to the Bangladeshi film industry or that he has a large fan base or anything, so at least two of the WP:NACTOR criterion points are not met. Also, the reason why I think most of the newspapers are not notable themselves is that they do not have very significant independent coverage in other reliable sources (no reliable sources to support Samakal and Banglanews24.com, only two The Daily Star mentions for Kaler Kantho, one unsignificant mention of Manabzamin in Time magazine and although Prothom Alo has a lot of references in the article, very few of them are reliable) so the only sufficiently (yet insignificantly) reliable source I could consider is Prothom Alo. Also, it may be noted that The Daily Star itself may not be considered to be entirely independent of other newspapers, since it is also a Bangladeshi newspaper itself. Hence, even assuming that the Prothom Alo website is temporarily down and the links will start working soon, this article about Symon will have only one sufficiently reliable source to support that he is notable, which is not enough for keeping the article. smtchahal^talk 05:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that publications used as sources should themselves be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the requirement that publications as sources are reliable? smtchahal^talk 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the User:Smtchahal is a bit confused with the reliability of sources. He has also reasoned similar things in this AfD where he was countered by another user apart from me. The fact is you can't judge the newspapers of developing countries with WP:GNG as any significant coverages about newspapers in these countries are hard to come. We generally assume a source to be reliable when it's a third party source, independent from the subject, though more things might be considered when the subject is controversial. And about the actor, the article passes the first criterion of WP:NACTOR and have some significant coverages, enough to include in wikipedia. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is apparently controversial. Besides, what do you think about the other two WP:NACTOR criteria? Because passing only one of the criteria is not enough; all of them are mandatory unless the subject is notable under WP:N. smtchahal^talk 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, one is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is controversial in this article. As I've mentioned before, the actor has significant coverages which passes WP:GNG. There is no need to pass all the criteria of WP:NACTOR, an actor can still be notable without making any unique, prolific or innovative contributions or having any cult following. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are sufficient. Even the G Translation makes it clear that he had major roles in at least some of the movies, and that's the usual practical standard. As Phil said, assertion that nonEnglish sources are unacceptable are just plain wrong. Assertions that all the N actor guideline considerations must be passed are also simply not correct DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Letasky[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment. Original concern was "Non-notable writer that seems to fail WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR." ALH (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:32, 9 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LK (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly merge in a couple sentences, there's certainly enough verification to keep the link from going red, per WP:ATD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom, per LK. This subject readily fails general guidelines as to biographical coverage about him. He also fails WP:ANYBIO as to any particular accomplishments. JFHJr (㊟) 23:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueTie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not cite any reliable sources to show notability. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason given by the nominator is fairly certainly correct so far as the article stands - of the four references given in the article, one is BlueTie itself, two are primary (official awards lists from the awarding organisations - the awards themselves look pretty minor) and one is broken enough that it's only possible to find what it was meant to point to by diving back into the article's history. However, I am left wondering how far, if at all, the nominator looked for further sources. The broken reference originally pointed to this item from Information Week, which probably explains how this article survived AfD in 2009 - I would regard Information Week as a generally reliable source, though this particular item looks like a summarised press release (probably OK for notability by 2009 standards, probably at most OK for verifiability now). However, this review, also from Information Week, and this one from PC Magazine, both look substantial enough to at least come close to providing a borderline keep. PWilkinson (talk) 11:09, 6 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:32, 9 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The Information Week review is insubstantial especially as to WP:CORPDEPTH. The PC Magazine review is closer to substantial, but it alone isn't multiple. Defending patents and press release news isn't coverage of the company itself, nor is it reliable when fodder news is clearly based on press releases. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect the page to a target you feel is appropriate, if you want to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to you. J04n(talk page) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motionless electromagnetic generator[edit]

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

Not notable. Another failed perpetual motion device. "Creator" keeps reverting edits and trying to sell fake products via the talk page. Hurting Wikipedia's solid reputation. Screen317 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather then delete, I would merge and redirect into History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#2000s. It already has an entry there. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Enric. I don't think a merge is necessary, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT/WP:NOR/WP:SOAPBOX. Do not redirect per FrankRadioSpecial infra. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article now has more primary sourced SYNTHESIS and OR than ever. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources make it clear the promised edits to bring the article into compliance with these policies are not possible. Keep and edit to bring this article into compliance with WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS policy: include only material that objective reliable secondary sources find notable. Much of this content was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bearden for lack of notability. Redirect to History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#2000s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly disagree with Screen317's raison d'être for this AfD. For one, an edit fight on the talk page has never been a valid reason for AfD that I've seen. For another, at least two of the CITEs seem to meet NOTE, Martin Gardner in particular, and the Random Operators paper to a lesser extent. Finally, the article basically says this thing is BS, although in such a neutral way it's amazing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, no redirect~~, mainly because the article is too poorly sourced. Another reason is that the second section of the article is basically a poorly sourced biography of living person. I like to argue against redirecting it to History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#2000s, while there are no reliable (not self-published) sources that have labeled the MEG as a "perpetual motion machine". The term "perpetual motion" is lousy anyway, while it's usually used as a mocking term by skeptics in a scientific incorrect manner. "Perpetual motion" only applies to "isolated systems" and truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature. Bearden made the exceptional (and scientifically extremely unlikely) claim that the MEG extracts energy from the "quantum vacuum" (e.g. zero-point energy). By this claim, the MEG wouldn't be "perpetual motion machine", but it would be just an exceptional energy machine. One could possibly theoretically proof that it can't be done and that Bearden's ideas are worthless, or at least proof the MEG doesn't produce excess energy. The MEG would then simply be a machine that doesn't work.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically don't redir because WP:RFD#D8? I can go with that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point re MEG claims to extract zero point energy. How about Zero_point_energy#Free-energy_devices as a #REDIR target? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FED article contains nothing about this topic, why would one redir it there? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mendaliv and LuckyLouie, but now that Maury Markowitz has brought all these new sources to the table, I like to revise to a ~~Keep~~. Still need to watch out with neutrality and unreferenced statements in section on Bearden, while it's basically a mini WP:BLP.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that portion should definitely be stripped to the bone. Maury Markowitz (talk)

Comment: A few moments of Google-fu turn up mentions of this device in many NOTE places: Bob Park covered it repeatedly in 2002 and later: start here. Bob even wrote an SF Chronicle article which mentions it here. Goldacre mentions Park's statements as an example of bad writing. here. Randi has mentioned him several times, as is the case here. And we have the aforementioned Gardner. It's mentioned in a textbook from SFU, here and a book on perpetual motion here, and even in raum&zeit here (unskeptically, but covering the flap) or New Scientist here. It seems that the skeptical community considers this topic NOTE. So is there some reason these examples don't meet Wiki NOTE, or is there some other reason for continuing the AfD? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of passing mentions that give the same few key details of MEG and appropriate criticism of it, but I must admit these are pretty good sources (except for the book by "Strategic Book Publishing" which is a pay-to-publish press). I could envision using them for a separate article about MEG, or a small section of a suitable target article, and stripping away the many existing citations to Bearden himself and the extraneous Bearden mini-bio and details about his Association. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happily volunteer to do all of this... but before that, are there any remaining issues for the AfD to consider? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that any of these paywalled sources you listed even mention the MEG considering the citations you added to the article don't mention it either. I notice the chronicle one appears to be about an anti-gravity machine IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 20 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However, article needs to be rewritten to make it clearer that this is WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience. LK (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources to really allow us to do that. As such this article can never truly be neutral without OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearden isn't notable, that has already been established. Of the two secondary sources [22], [23], neither mentions the MEG. We have an absence of secondary sources here, so why would we keep this article? Perhaps the fake PhD is worth mentioning in the history article, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Paucity of reliable secondary sources providing in-depth coverage indicates WP:GNG is not met; the rest leads me to think WP:FRINGE applies. JFHJr (㊟) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a few out of hand dismissals do not sufficient RS make. a13ean (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inadequately sourced, and it is unlikely that reliable sources will be found, because scientists typically don't waste their time refuting perpetual motion when they already know it is impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Userfy to Maury Markowitz. In its current state, the article is just of too low quality, with several problems, most importantly the shortage of good sources. I don't agree with the characterizations used by the users above. The notability of the MEG is quite weak, but Bearden is quite notable by his reputation in the conspiracy genre. Problem is that by being notably in this genre, the vast majority of sources won't make it through Wikipedia's filter for sources (which obviously was set up to limit fringe sources in non-fringe topics, not to severely hinder uncontroversial information in articles on fringe topics being backup by fringe sources). The PhD is highly questionable, but not proven as fake. To establish the PhD as fake, one would preferably have to go into the details of Bearden's academically submitted work, not just write it off by association. The pseudoscience label is a mocking term used by a few which generally dismiss Bearden's work out of hand instead of providing substantiated critique. The perpetual motion label is just wrong and unscientific, while a machine that would extract energy from the "quantum vacuum" (e.g. zero-point energy) wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Martin Gardner thought it notable enough to devote a column to it. I tend to accept his judgement on nonsense like this. He's a sufficient authority to justify inclusion. I don't know why IRWolfe and others think he's not a RS in this topic. (Not everything in Skeptical inquirer is completely reliable, but Gardner is. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia doesn't work this way. At least 3 reliable sources are needed to establish some form of notability. Reliability is generally judged on the information outlet as a whole, instead of on the reputation of a single writer/editor.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) there is no such number 3, and (2) 3 notable sources were provided. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread what I said. I think the Gardner source is reliable, it's just not about this topic. It's about a self-published book by Bearden. I can't see any text specifically about this machine, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did misunderstand, but I disagree with you about the significance of that essay as a source: I read it again just now, and the essay is a RS for this topic. Gardner discusses to some extent Bearden and his book in general, but focuses on his concept of getting energy from vacuum, which I think is supposed by Bearden to be the basis of this machine. That's close enough. Personally, I think the article should be on Bearden, but the article on him was deleted, though with two comments that it should be redirected to this very article. The article was poorly defended, but in any case it was of really low quality--and it did not include the essay by Gardner, which would serve very well for a general source about him &, if found, should have prevented deletion. I think we should cover his work one way or another, and if what we can keep is an article on this machine, so be it. It would be better to keep, and consider a move back to Bearden, though not necessarily restoration of the deleted material.

Looking at it, I see deleting this essentially as resulting in our removal all coverage of him from whatever angle. Such effects are common with people in pseudoscience and other dubious fields. We should cover pseudoscience thoroughly and carefully, because we have the potential to be a RS on the subject, and this is badly needed. What we need is to prevent the proponents from controlling the articles. I think at least some trying to delete articles like this would rather see as little coverage of the whole field as possible, in the hope it will disappear. It won't by itself: people need a RS encyclopedia to understand that nonsense is nonsense. The need to understand in order to judge is the basis of encyclopedias, and of education. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An easier option would be to write an article about Bearden. The existence of that article is now justified. But this specific machine no, the sources don't discuss it, and it seems to be being inferred (it seems Bearden claims to have many perpetual motion machines, saying it's specifically this one is a bit of a leap). What we shouldn't be doing is trying to debunk a topic through original research, which is precisely what seems to be happening at the moment, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it hard to justify whether the sources had validity for or with the content. There needs to be an article to debunk perpetual energy workload devices, and declare how they defy physics. There were ads for these machines, and the problems with the claims need to be addressed. I don't think this article can stay where it is, it should be about all supposed perpetual workload machines. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite complete

Keep seems to be a perfectly respectable article on a perfectly non respectable type of generator. We do better having pseudoscience in Wikipedia, and labelling it as such, than failing to mention it. If we were to delete all the pseudoscience like homeopathy, the world wouldn't have anywhere summarising how terrible pseudoscience generally is. References are fine. Notability is established. If the talk page is being spammed, then the talk page should be protected, not the main article being deleted, that's not how we roll here.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are fine? Please show an independent source that mentions the MEG, the article is about Bearden and other perpetual motion, anti-gravity machines not the MEG. The article is a synthesis of unrelated sources to this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[24], does not mention Bearden or MEG, [25] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [26] is a blog, [27] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [28] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [29] self published, etc etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming delete after rewrite The rewrite is full of original research and the independent secondary sources are not about the MEG. I suggest the closing admin actually review a few of these sources themselves to confirm the original research and synthesis [30]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments IRWolfie, I will take them under advisement. In the meantime I have restored my multi-hour edits so the other editors here can decide for themselves. As to the specifics, the article talks about the widely reported problems in the patent system, the widely reported problems that overwork is causing, and several specific mentions in the press that the MEG is seen as example of the junk patents clogging system. You have not detailed the OR or SYN claims other than to mention, non-specifically, what appears to be a claim of some sort of feature creep. In the meantime, a further revert will be counted towards 3RR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors can look at the article history. I have already specifically listed multiple sources above that you used which do not mention the MEG or Bearden. I have already started a talk page discussion, the onus is on you to get consensus for your changes, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And did you list any of the sources that do mention the MEG or Bearden? The NOTEable sources? It appears you are now complaining about certain sections of the article, which is fine, but this is an AfD page, not the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be confused about policy if you are talking about notable sources. It's the reliability and independence of sources we are interested in, and the extent of their coverage of this device. You added a vast amount of material to an article most of which is irrelevant. The onus is on you to add relevant material to an article, the onus is not on me to try and find what the relevant source is, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to different title, about all supposed machines of this sort. This way there is a way to document the claim made, and address it. - - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perpetual motion machines. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move Dean drive too? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "History of perpetual motion machines". Merge parts of it to the appropriate articles. I don't know about "dean drive". - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in the contemporary history of perpetual motion machines. --J. D. Redding 17:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have advanced no argument to show it is notable but merely stated that it is, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. A simple Google books search can show that. But some cannot be alleviated of their ignorance, --J. D. Redding 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in unreliable fringe sources does not mean something is notable, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stated that Gardner is NOTEable in this edit. So then, you are claiming that you believe Park and Goldacre are "unreliable fringe sources"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, That diff is of DGG not me. Whether Bearden is notable or not is irrelevant to whether the MEG is notable. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Sources about Bearden do not contribute to notability about this device, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of SUBSTANTIAL coverage in multiple RELIABLE independent secondary sources. The only mention of this in reliable secondary sources is brief passing dismissals. The material in reliable sources is so sparse that a coherent article on this topic is impossible to write. Basically, you would be left with a one-word stub that says "Bullshit" that could never be expanded beyond that. Article as it now stands is just promotional OR and synthesis based on a mish mash of unreliable fringe sources or completely irrelevant reliable sources. No hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found because it has been, and will continue to be, ignored by scientists as not worth their effort to comment on. I don't see anything worth merging. This is not a notable example of a perpetual motion device. It doesn't have any particular historical significance. It's just another in a long, long, long list of such devices. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pupil Meter[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, shops and pr. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. It's an app that is very successful in its niche, and its use is widespread. I supplied a lot of references from a variety of different sources to establish notability, which is what one has to be done with an app. If there's an Apps category on Wikipedia, then this is surely the type of info needs to fill out the category. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N is not satisfied by the refs included with the article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every app ever created. Edison (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable app. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:06, 14 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another non-notable app being promoted on Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No evidence of being a notable app, no claim made of notability. LK (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources - 20/20 might be reliable, since it's published by Jobson Medical Information LLC. But the rest are simply reproducing info from the app's producers, giving directory-listing-style info, or from the websites of retailers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included links to the retailers to show that this App is actually in use by quite a few businesses. Surely that is what would make the app notable? The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are promotional. The article is promotion. All new saleable products are promoted, and Wikipedia does not welcome promotion, new saleable products have a high bar to beat. To beat "delete too promotional" you need direct and signifcant commentary from independent sources. Comment does not include description. Reviews are not independant reviews if they describe and include a purchase link. Evidence of use is not secondary source information and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia-notability (WP:N). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All reviews I found were personal ones - and almost universally bad as it turns out. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 22 May 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.