< 14 November	16 November >

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 Hammonton, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communities in Hammonton, NJ[edit]

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

Article has no meaningful content to be a separate page. So therefore, it should be deleted, or some material merged into Hammonton, New Jersey. Tinton5 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Hammonton, New Jersey. Some of the communities listed in the Communities in Hammonton, NJ article are not present in the Hammonton, New Jersey article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hammonton, New Jersey. It's just not notable enough for a separate article. If we were talking about Tribeca or one of the various Chinatowns, that'd be different. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hammonton, New Jersey the precious little that's worth merging. This link lets you search on local places within New Jersey municipalities and it lists Bellhurst, DaCosta, Great Swamp, Rockford, Rockwood, Rosedale and West Mills as communities with Hammonton. These communities have already been added to the article for the town. This article under discussion describes some of the communities as being near Hammonton and they don't belong in the target article. Alansohn (talk) 00:08, 17 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Revolt[edit]

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

Not notable, or at least not yet. The organization was only created last month. More importantly, the sources cited don't appear to pass muster, at least as far as notability is concerned: several are cited to Truth Revolt itself, several others are to breitbart.com, which, judging from source 2, is not independent of Truth Revolt. The USAToday and Daily Caller sources are opinion pieces, which aren't considered reliable. This leaves only the DailyBeast article, which has no indications of being an opinion piece, but given previous discussions at RSN [1][2][3][4][5], I'm not sure it's reliable enough to confer notability on its own. Further searches didn't turn up anything reliable and independent. I'd welcome differing opinions, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom there is not enough sourcing yet. BTW Opinion pieces can be used for notability (see WP:BIASED which allows for them), it's a question of the underlying source and author of the piece. In this case the source is ok USA Today but the author is less well known, so not sure how notable it would be. If it was Bill Clinton writing the opinion in the New York Times... -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in USA Today plus the organization's early successes favor inclusion. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. It's a very new organisation, and the lack of significant coverage reflects that. The USA Today opinion piece is usable to advance notability, as it is under some editorial control, but it's the only item from a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 20 November 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 deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The swillhouse[edit]

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

~~Author contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable band without substantial coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nominate for Speedy Deletion The author blanked the page twice, and it was reverted. After explaining that they could request a speedy deletion, the author put db-g7 at the top. I fixed it to included brackets so it would bring up the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be deleted unless the notability is proven. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 15 November 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. Feel free to renominate if you so desire! SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've Been Spiked[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, only one source and it didn't chart. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chris Joss, the review if nothing else. --Michig (talk) 12:56, 2 November 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 8 November 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, v/r - T P 21:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the album is listed on his article, and I see no need to clunk up the article with the listing of all the tracks. The album itself isn't notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 15 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. strip[edit]

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

This article is in danger of meeting criteria A10 of CSD. It is a regurgitation of Arsenal F.C.#Colours with content sourced from sources such as blogs and the club's own website. There seems to be no justification for a dedicated article to the kits, particularly considering that there is no evidence of significant coverage of the kit itself versus the club. C 679 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 21:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a separate article, no evidence that this has been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. Past consensus that these kind of articles are non-notable can be found at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources to fulfill WP:GNG and the rationale given that it is mainly from blogs is incorrect as ESPN and HFK are not blogs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which ESPN reference you're referring to as not being a blog? I only see one link and it's got "blog" in the url. C 679 21:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the HFK appears to be a tertiary source, at the bottom of the article you can read their references. Looks something like a Wikipedia article in that regard. In light of these two points, GNG looks a long way off. C 679 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between blogs done by anybody and blogs that are on reliable sources and require editorial checking before being posted. Tertiary sources are acceptable, given HFK are citing where they got their information from. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of HFK - even had some of my own research published there - but it is not enough to justify Wikipedia's notability requirements. Giant Snowman 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Still disagree, considering the main HFK link lists a fansite as its first link and other sources including the arsenal website. Even if it was a "reliable" tertiary source, tertiary sources are not acceptable for establishing whether the GNG is met. So I do not understand how you think the article has "sufficient sources to fulfil GNG". C 679 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the club article. We really do not need articles on club strips, which seem to be changed with incredible rapidity as a means of fleecing fans of their hand-earned wages, so that they can spend their money on a copy of the new strip, long before they have worn out its predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources in the article to indicate the notability of the subject. That and the precedent set by the AfDs linked above should be enough to seal the deletion of this one. – Pee Jay 21:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Happy that there is clear consensus that articles on kit that they are not desired except where there is substantial third party discussion. No indication that the history of the Arsenal kit or badge has attracted such discussion. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent notability, in general, and what there is (surrounding the copyrightability of the crest, mainly) is dealt with in more detail in the club article. Originally, the creator of this attempted to expand the relevant section of Arsenal F.C. with multiple images, during that article's FAR which I was helping with at the time. Didn't realise they went on to create a separate article. There's little here apart from some of the images that isn't already in Arsenal F.C., and much of the text of this article is unattributed copy/paste from Arsenal F.C., which is a bit naughty. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity, Dublin: Augustinian Friars[edit]

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

~~Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, indiscernable & irrelevant topic.~~ Freebirds ^Howdy! 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the recent changes to the article, as well as a possible name change per suggestion of 101.119.14.241 below, AfD should be withdrawn. Freebirds ^Howdy! 17:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Invalid deletion criterion; article is clearly about an Augustinian Priory that used to exist in Dublin. Google books shows several references; the site is notable. Also note WP:NOTCLEANUP. -- 101.119.14.241 (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and relist in six months~~. This seems to be notable, but I can't see the refs to validate. JASpencer (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added refs to the article. -- 101.119.14.5 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the references I've struck out the relist. JASpencer (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: name change to Augustinian Friary of the Holy Trinity, Dublin would be desirable, though not during AfD. -- 101.119.15.3 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the site is listed on the Irish Register of Historic Monuments. -- 101.119.15.3 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per Anon or just Friary of the Holy Trinity, Dublin or Augustinian Friary, Dublin (assuming that that order did not have several in Dublin. WP has a lot of articles on medieval monasteries in England, and Ireland should be no different. The fact that it has been excavated strengthns the case for keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD has been withdrawn by nominator. -- 101.119.14.2 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Farina[edit]

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

He is a run of the mill minor leaguer who's only "notability" is that he was suspended for drugs. Yankees10 19:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Significant coverage" does not exist for this individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable minor league player. If PEDs is the only aspect that makes him "famous", he fails WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynace[edit]

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

Lacks reliable, independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turns up nothing helpful. This may simply be a case of WP:Too soon but Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystall ball nor is it for WP:Promotion. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above, no notable independent sources or evidence of notability (I summarized the problems with the offered references on the article talk page). Rwessel (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Blake, it is a really really cool bit of software, adding full OO constructs, including generics (wow!) to C, but all the sources are primary and all the GHits I found are you. I did find the Dr Doobs article, but I don't think it makes for a good secondary source. scope_creep talk 00:005 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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 pageor in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-administrator closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball Flying High[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for films. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Disputed PROD where the user said there were reviews cited, but the only citations in the articles are broken links, and the reviews I found online come from unreliable sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, theatrically released feature film. Smetanahue (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and suggest nom withdraw their nomination. Notability is unquestioned. PRODding this is a misunderstanding and then submitting it to AfD is as if WP:BEFORE did not exist. Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I've done so. You're right that notability is unquestioned, now that more reliable sources have been added. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 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 adeletion 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effective half-life[edit]

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

To me, this is a very unfamiliar way of describing issues with half-life. It seems to be the same as the reservoir effect as effectively described on Radiocarbon dating. It also seems to be a poor summary of the single external link. On the talk page there are older calls for deletion. PatHadley (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a basic concept in pharmacokinetics, applicable in case that biological elimination is a constant rate process that can be modeled as having a biological half-life. This paper, published in 1995, shows that the concept has been around since 1977. There is some controversy over its use, for instance in this PharmaPK discussion, because it may be too simple of a model in some cases. Nonetheless the concept has made it into an encyclopedia from the European Nuclear Society and a nuclear medicine tutorial. There are over 5,500 GScholar hits for the concept. There are multiple reliable sources for the topic, making it notable. The article could use some work on better sources and describing potential pitfalls, but it is salvageable per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. -- 101.119.14.241 (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok - well I've learned some interesting stuff! I've removed the archaeology-related categories and I think it's now time for me to leave alone the stuff I don't understand! Thanks for clarifying PatHadley (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted above that in my brief search I saw no evidence of this term being used in either archaeological or geological contexts and agree those categories don't apply here. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Effective half-life is a legitimate concept, although it is used more broadly than just with respect to elimination in radio-pharmacology (note that one of the references given by Mark viking, the one tracing it to 1977, is about its use in reflecting drug accumulation into distinct pharmacokinetic 'compartments', and the term also is used to reflect the cumulative effect of independent liver and kidney elimination half-lives). Radioactivity is a bit of a special case in that it has a physical half-life via radioactive decay, as distinct from one due to biochemical and physiological processes, but the MeSH definition of biological half-life, which we also use, includes the loss of radiologic activity, and this would take the duality into account. In effect, then, effective half-life is just the biological half-life in a complex system, the observed sum of each single specific biochemical, physiological and physical half-life, making the two effectively the same in most cases (given that rarely is there a single mode of elimination), and I suspect some of the controversy is over whether this is a worthwhile distinction. I have done a major revision to try to reflect its broader usage, but perhaps this article should be merged into biological half-life, at least until someone is better able to draw the distinction than I have been. Agricolae (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rewrite and expansion of the article. I agree that biological half-life is broad enough in definition/practical use to encompass what is meant by effective half-life. I suspect that biological half-life is a broader concept than effective half-life, but I'd need to do more digging to verify this. While I think that effective half-life is a notable enough concept to have a place somewhere in Wikipedia, a merge to biological half-life would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter-No-Tail (film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for films. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, theatrically released feature film. Smetanahue (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pelle Svanslös is part of Swedish children history.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anyone who can find better third person sources than me would be welcome so this doesn't happen again.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:CSB toward a Swedish film series made from a notable children's book series. That sources seem primarily in non-English sources, does not diminish notablity. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the admissions data at IMDb, more Swedish people went to watch this than The Empire Strikes Back. To provide some context, this film sold 400,000 admissions whereas the top Swedish release of 2012 sold 500,000 admissions (Skyfall was the overall winner with just over 1 million admissions) [6], so it was obviously a successful major release. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gissberg[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage in reliable sources, nor has there been any in the article since its creation. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 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 November 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, director of several notable feature films. Smetanahue (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my impression from a brief web search is that he is notable although very Swedish - that is, he seems to be notable mostly to a Swedish audience, and that would suggest why it is somewhat difficult to find good references for him in English. Still I got one reference from a comic reference website. Jztinfinity (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I checked Nationalencyklopedin and Gissberg has an entry there. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:GNG. Nationalencyklopedin mention as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. This AFD could be speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G5, but since the discussion has gone on for a few days I will let it be. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Crown[edit]

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

This persona fails "general notability guidelines." There is no substantial coverage in any reputable sources. Yes, there are passing mentions in niche sources and blogs, but that is not enough to merit an article here on Wikipedia. In addition to the notability doctrine on Wikipedia, the article does not make a prima facie case that the subject is worthy of note at all, other than he died of appendicitis at age 18. Is everyone that has died young now worthy of an encyclopedia article? This should have been speedied. Cruft. Not only that, but the article is very POV, full of subjective claims and "weaselly words" about the subject. Ohlendorf77 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his notability is particular to his sport, but the sources cited seem pretty mainstream within his sport. This is certainly not a recent topic, so I would suggest that his life is a notable sport story about chess. I would not say his notability is high, but chess is a topic with wide interest, and it looks like he has significant notability within the chess community. Ultimately, it is more the fact that people remember him that makes him notable than the fact that he did something "great", since that is separate from notability. The article could certainly use improvement though Jztinfinity (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chess magazine is indeed a mainstream publication in the chess community, probably one of the 3 or 4 highest circulation chess magazines. Edward Winter is not a mere "blogger" but a respected chess historian, noted for his thoroughness to the point of abrasiveness. Crown's death was covered in the mainstream press at the time in Britain, Australia, Canada and the US; several of these sources described him as a "prodigy" and noted his win against Alexander Kotov. I'm not saying the article should necessarily cite these sources (though it could if an editor feels it appropriate), merely noting that they exist. I actually consider the niche chess publications to be more reliable sources of chess information than the mainstream press, which often gets details wrong. Finally use of the term "cruft" in an Afd discussion is unhelpful. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on added strength of historic sources linked by User:MaxBrowne, some of which should be in the article. Notability doesn't expire with time. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is the opposite of everything the opposer says. They ARE reputable sources, they AREN'T passing mentions, but full articles that are sourced, the article DOESN'T only refer to his appendicitis, and playing for your country and defeating a leading soviet grandmaster while a teenager DOES confer notability. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- as a member of the national team. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Nominator is likely a sock. Quale (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable source coverage. WP:MILL. Nichecruft, spam article. Talkingfacts2 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden Wiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All coverage seems to come from October 2011, when Anonymous shut down a child porn site on the hidden wiki. Literally 100% of the hits on Google News are from that one week. No other notability asserted, no good sources found at all. This seems to be a WP:NOTNEWS. Last AFD closed in 2012 as "no consensus" with no policy-based arguments in either direction. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just about satisfies WP:GNG. This is the best known site which indexes Tor .onion sites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: So it's notable because it's notable. Just checking. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost any article or book that talks about specific Tor hidden services at least mentions Hidden Wiki. It played a role in the various child pornography stories as well as the lesser known but still briefly mainstream hitman for hire stories. It's frequently mentioned or discussed, always controversial, and it's very commonly people's gateway/introduction to Tor. It's true a lot of the hits that deal with it specifically are marginal sources at best, but if there was still any doubt the Telegraph piece puts it over the edge. --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Even though the Telegraph piece comes from exactly the same one-week span in which 100% of the other news coverage does? How is it "Frequently discussed" if I was completely unable to find any coverage not from October 2011? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @TenPoundHammer: - Even if we assume you're right that every source is from that one week, you're responding to each Keep here as though coverage across a wide span of time is an absolute requirement for inclusion. It is one way that notability can be established -- a sufficient way to say something is notable not a necessary one. It's not even part of the GNG or WEBCRIT, neither of which pose a problem here. The article isn't about that event, and even within that one week not all of the articles talk about the site within the context of the event, focusing on the site itself. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per comments above. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezonansowy: Again. Sources. Where are they? I see only one small run of sources from a one-week period. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the References section. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The time period of which sources came from is not relevant as this is not an event or a BLP. I see enough sources to satisfy GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if I get four news articles in a week about the packet of Burger King coupons on my desk, then it's good enough to be notable? Don't be stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad reasoning. Especially as qualifier for a personal attack.
  1. Your objection isn't that there are only four articles (there are far more than that); your objection is that they don't span enough time.
  2. You're relying on everybody's presumed agreement that a packet of Burger King coupons is not notable such that you could put whatever you want after the "if." I could swing the other way by saying "So if the only articles I have about [the President of United States] or [a nuclear bomb explosion in a big city] or [the richest person in the world] are from the same week he/she/it isn't notable?"
  3. Burger King coupons already have a place in the article for Burger King should you find sources substantiating their significance on their own. If there were a company called The Hidden and this were its wiki then the analogy would at least work on that level, but it's not the case.
  4. If there is something sitting on your desk that does not currently have an article or an obvious parent article, if it passes the GNG and other relevant notability criteria, if it is sourced with reliable secondary publications...then yes, create an article for it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:09, 19 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoking Man (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, awards are very minor BOVINEBOY2008 18:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one link on the article is a YouTube link and there as to be at least a better reference that that. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not at all surprised to see this at AFD. I nominated this for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#G11 although the processing admin rejected this, the article appears to be created by the director and the image (which was deleted for non-free) had its caption as "this is an image to promote the film", the article is promotional in tone, and as per the editor above - a self-published youtube film does not a reliable source make. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Glen Golphin[edit]

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

Dubious biography of a living person. None of the strong statements in the article is backed by sources. Creator Filmfetalle is a single-purpose account, likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VANISPAM. The over the top claims about Oprah and White House and Steven Jobs etc.. can be sourced to his own website.[7] They don't check out, or can't be verified. There is some kernel of truth in that he is a game developer, but the sourcing is weak - a couple local profiles (local TV news and Kent State) that doesn't meet minimum notability guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Written like a promotional resume with tons of peacocking and unsupported over the top claims. The TV interview is good, but nothing else passes the bar. TECHudson looks like a minor station for some related/marketing/tech business? The interview would be a good source for material, but doesn't quality for GNG as being primary. Overall, a WP:ONEEVENT case. Everything else is about the game, not the developer. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:51, 17 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Barnaoui[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage. Winning a second tier title does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck. SarahStierch (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khillah[edit]

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

On notablity grounds - MMA fighter with single top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck He doesn't yet meet WP:NMMA, although I have no objections to this article being recreated when/if he does. As far as his TKD record goes, the fact that the NCTA's records show that some divisions only had 1 competitor certainly implies this can't be considered a major event and an appearance at the world university championships has never been considered enough to show notability (especially with no victories). Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not yet individually notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. This item is on the home page. It should not be nominated for deletion while there, and moreover, every vote is keep or merge. For the moment I do not see a consensus to merge, but that could be discussed further at the article talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Chapramari Forest train accident[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and this is not WP:notable. There are plenty of rail/road/sea accidents a year (migrant boat sniking that kill about a dozne or two) and that doesnt make then encyclopaedic.

How irnoic what is on WP's newbox today: [8]

and more Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary. Doesn't seem to be an isolated incident and should be placed in context. Will add value there (perhaps in a section "Accidents involving wildlife"). --regentspark (comment) 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many transport accidents every year, but a few of them stand out as unusual and this is indeed one of them. — C M B J 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note- this is teh page creatorLihaas (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The page creator is still allowed to have an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a pruned version to Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary or an article on the railway line (which I don't think currently exists). Additionally a broader article on elephant conservation issues other than poaching for ivory would be interesting; I couldn't find an existing article on a suitable topic. As I wrote at ITN/Candidates regarding a much earlier version of this article, I don't think this incident is sufficiently significant to merit an individual article. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, merge don't delete. A significant occurrence but quite probably not a standalone article. Also recommend that nominator writes in English, or checks nominations in Word or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a rather good sized article now, with 16 sources. The event is obviously notable, and will be referred to long in the future and separately from the preserve. Merger would be counterproductive with an article this large, larger than the one into which it is suggested it be merged. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the expansion includes material that is either loosely related or non-encyclopedic detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just BEC AUSE something had plenty of sources doesnt make it notable for inclusion an encyclopaedia. there is "obvious notablility" thus. How do you say it WILL be referred to long after? Theres no precedence for that. See traffic sats on other ITN articles.Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for its unusual nature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thats not what notable is "unusual nature"Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this means, as it doesn't appear to be English. Are you saying this is not a reason for notability? Well, yes, it can be. It is in my opinion. And opinions are valid at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has plenty of sources, and is clearly a notable accident for involving animals rather than people. - Bhtpbank (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see above, but having sources is NOT "clearly" notableLihaas (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly have no idea of what the general notability guidelines say. For your reference an article is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article has, and thus you have no basis on which to tag this article for deletion. I recommend that you be given a warning for you actions. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm no, just being cited in pages doesn't make something notable for an encylopaedia. That argument has been cited by more than meLihaas (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yes. You need to read the Guidelines. Ignorance of Wikipedia Policy does not mean that you are correct. -Bhtpbank (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major accidents are of enduring interest and so this article passes WP:NOTNEWS. Greenshed (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a major accident. The news stories are all dated over a couple of days and then it is news no more! --regentspark (comment) 23:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This accident currently features on the Wikipedia front page news section. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for involving so many elephants. According to the ABC article "The crash was the worst of its kind in recent memory, said Hiten Burman, forestry minister in West Bengal." Also I think this article has too much info to merge into the wildlife sanctuary's article. eug (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to multiple "breaking news" stories about the accident (satisfies "independent" and "reliable" criteria in the inclusion guideline), there are also follow-up news stories such as this describing measures to be taken to prevent similar future accidents. So, the "persistent coverage" guideline is also satisfied and that's a strong reason to have an article. Der yck C. 12:44, 21 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of wrestling characters[edit]

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

This article is... how do I put this. Semiotics is a thing. Wrestling characters are a thing. And it's certainly possible to apply semiotic analysis to wrestling characters. But the "semiotics of wrestling characters" as a thing is not shown by this article to be a topic that requires an article. The article attempts to present some semiotic analysis of wrestling characters, based on a couple of sources, but that should be included somewhere else, probably Kayfabe. As this article stands, it's teetering on the verge of only existing as a synthetic construction. It was created by a single user in 2011 who then never came back, and has remained largely unchanged since then. That user clearly had no idea what they were talking about, either, because the sentence "Wrestling characters use semiotics to portray their character in explicit fashion." is gibberish.— Scott • talk 13:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly conceived. It should be about "Wrestling character" not "Semiontics of wrestling characters." We have an article on Reptile, not Biology of reptiles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comment. Most of this is simply an analysis of face and heel. It may or may not be possible to write an article about attempts to apply the academic discipline of semiotics to wrestling, akin to the article sociology of religion, which discusses the various ways that the academic discipline of sociology has been applied to religion (there's also the rather stubby semiotics of culture as another comparison). But this is not that kind of article. And it's not a notable topic in the way sociology of religion or semiotics of culture are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barthes' essay on semiotics within wrestling is an interesting one - but it is interesting as an essay on the application of semiotics. It doesn't make the subject itself notable. The article strikes me as resembling a student essay by someone who read Barthes, and missed the point entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PyWord[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found in multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia). AllyD (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rigel Sauri[edit]

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

Minor artist, notability not established. References are of regional interest only and/or self-published. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability found in Highbeam and Questia searches, Google only turns up user-submitted content. That leaves the unverifiable sources in the article could amount to more but appear to be just passing local coverage. Even the artist's own domain now seems to lead nowhere now. Fails WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nomination. --Lockley (talk) 06:03, 18 November 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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article at this time; nor is there a clear consensus to preserve the article although User:Biruitorul has indeed brought forward a valid argument for its preservation. (This close does not indicate a final choice of name for the article, as this was a point of contention during the discussion. A final name can be decided, through consensus, in another venue where it can receive proper attention.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin[edit]

79.112.3.217 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The name of the article is "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". However if you read the first sentence you will see that none of them are Dacian on the list. "Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases." Therefore this list does not make any sense. Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins (see "notes" section). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The list is relevant for the vocabulary of Romanian language. Many works by specialists refer to words of possible Dacian origin" Eurocentral (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iaaasi, you already voted, and please, decide: use IP address or sockpuppet user name. You have used both above. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SPI showing that this is a sock, stop personal attacks 82.79.213.79 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An unsourced statement from the article ("Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases.") cannot be a reason for deletion. According to the historian Nicolae Stoicescu, there are 160 - 170 Romanian words of Dacian origin (the source is in the article). 79.117.186.76 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ISP's first edit. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any words on the list from Stoicescu. This list is absolutely unreliable and highly misleading. It does not fit Wikipedia standards. Is Stoicescu a linguist? According to the Romanian Wikipedia he is not even a linguist. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From another source: "Linguistic studies made by specialists have led to the identification in the Romanian language of 170 words of Dacian origin in different fields."[9] 86.127.21.225 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. The whole list is just a mess. It is useless. Would you like to create a blank page instead of deletion? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The deletion request is based on non-sense and political agenda, constantly pushed by this user. The list name says it all "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". I agree it needs more work, such as newer sources and cleanup, but the user's attitude and sarcastic comments don't help in any way in that direction. If he wants to help, he should do it with an open mind and honesty. Otherwise, he should take his political agenda elsewhere. This is not the right place. All the books/authors in the Sources section treat the listed words as Dacian or Thracian. Even the titles of some of the books have it very clear in them. Ion I. Russu, Limba traco-dacilor (i.e. The language of the Thraco-Dacians); Ariton Vraciu, Limba daco-geților (i.e. The language of the Daco-Getae). Sorin Olteanu, "The TDM Palatal" ("Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project"); The statement Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins is a pure fabrication for the un-advised reviewer of this "deletion request". What this article really needs are inline citations from the mentioned sources plus newer, modern sources. However, the research on this field is limited in the modern times, hence, the latest good sources remain the books from Russu and others.WP:Other stuff exists and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary are ridiculous and frivolous arguments. By your logic, would you delete the hundred or so articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin?--Codrin.B (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what Wikipedia standards mean? You try to save the dead duck. Hasdeu's work is 120 years old. Russu and Olteanu are not linguists and most of the words on the list have counter theories..... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russu and Olteanu are not linguists?! Olteanu is the top linguist at the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology and THE expert in the Dacian and Thracian language topic still alive. And so was Russu. Can you stop making such blatantly false statements?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russu was a historian and specialized in epigraphy. I do not think he is a linguist. However you are right with Olteanu he is primarily a linguist (my mistake). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete although WP:Other stuff exists any "list of words" is a mini-dictionary and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that any reference book, encyclopedia or dictionary, is for factual information not for things that someone sometime somewhere said were possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) The article is mainly based on the work of a late 19th-century scholar (Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu) whose views have not been universally accepted. (2) That there are words in the Romanian language which are of Dacian origin is only a POV, which cannot be substantiated: there are less than a 100 documented Dacian words and none of them is attested among the Romanian words of "possible Dacian origin". Therefore these words can be of "possible Thracian origin" or of "possible Illyrian origin", as well. (3) There are many words in all languages the origin of which is uncertain, but there are no separate articles/lists for them. I think there is no need to create such lists. (4) WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the article. Russu is by far the most quoted source (see the Sources column in the table), and he is the authority on the Dacian language field to this day. I wonder why only the Hungarian editors with known radical views against Dacian-Romanian ties and Daco-Romanian continuity are voting for this ridiculous delete request?! This article makes these ties obvious, hence it is adamant to be removed at any cost to fulfill the Hungarian revisionism agenda. No Chinese or Peruvians interested in the topic, perhaps with a WP:NPOV?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Codrinb, are you sure that Kitfoxxe is a Hungarian editor who is driven by chauvinist, nationalist, revisionist, ...ist, ...ist, ...ist Hungarian purposes? I suggest that you should forget this strange idea of a world where Hungarians are working everywhere in order to destroy the well-established fortress of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codrinb, please avoid personal attacks against Hungarian editors. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of the scientific merit of the concept, it's an idea that has had wide circulation for well over a century and has been amply covered by reliable sources. Eminescu, journalist and national poet, was keenly interested in these theories. Historia, the popular history magazine, recently published an article on the Dacians, including discussion of the words on this list. The tone indicates the list is fairly well known by the average Romanian reader. Dan Caragea, art critic with training in linguistics, recently discussed the list at length. It appears in university curricula (p.29). There's at least one book solely devoted to this topic. Yes, the book is from 1983, at a time when Protochronism was rampant, but we don't fail to cover ideas that have fallen into discredit (Alchemy, Phrenology), and this one still has some currency.
I don't really understand the claims that this is an invalid topic. Not only has it explicitly received academic attention, but we have a whole Category:Lists of loanwords. Around 60 Lists of English words by country or language of origin! All right, there's WP:WAX to consider, but clearly the consensus is in favor of such lists in principle. Individual lists may not be worth keeping, but the general idea has been accepted.
Finally, I agree this could use some tightening here and there, some tweaks to make various things clearer, but that is a matter for the editing process. The topic itself is a notable one, and there is no plausible reason to delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, sorry but for me even the idea of an article whose title contains a weasel word ("possible") is absurd. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a long time ago you were not so adverse to the word "possible". You made a renaming proposal in the past, where your proposed new title still contained this word :P Talk:List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin#Requested_move 86.127.21.226 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was not brave enough to propose the deletion of the whole article. I only wanted to improve the title of the article in order to reflect its actual subject: it is a list of words which may or may not have originated from the substratum of the Romanian language, which may or may not have been the Dacian language. However, Fakirbakir made the only logical proposal: the whole article should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible dwarf planets.
Way to ignore my entire argument and respond with an ignoratio elenchi. If it's the title you find problematic, call it, I don't know, Dacian substrate theory. I've shown that the theory is widely mentioned and that is enough for keeping the article, even if you or I or a majority of the linguistic community have doubts as to its veracity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not understand what is the relevance of an article of words with undefined or multiple-defined origin. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself has acquired notability by being republished and discussed in reliable sources. It may be inaccurate; it may even be totally discredited. That does not matter so much as the academic attention it has received. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the subject is impossible to prove 100% (that far in history nothing is 100%), hence the tittle "possible". The article needs some improving or maybe even some tittle change but that is not the reason to delete it. Keep. Adrian (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore WP is not the place of propaganda of false and silly Daco-Romanian continuity. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Let`s keep our personal attitude and crazy opinions for ourself. Keep to the facts. Calling a Daco-Romanian continuity propaganda or similar is just POV and has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion while ignoring some major facts. You voted delete based on absolutely nothing tangible except that you don`t believe in it...Adrian (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are no facts. That is the problem. The etymology of these words are just theories (and not to mention their counter theories)....Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Fakirbakir. This article is a hoax, there are inconsistencies between the title and the content. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A dictionary is a work where words are defined. The purpose of this list is not to define words, but to enumerate words supposed by some to be of Dacian origin. Moreover, if you have such a problem with the concept, feel free to start nominating for deletion the entries at Lists of English words by country or language of origin. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference. The most of the supposed Dacian words exist only in theory as opposed to English words. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theory itself is notable. It may be completely inaccurate or outdated, but it's been covered by reliable sources, which is our basic standard for notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to Norden1990's remark below. Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin are also discussed in reliable sources: they deny the relibiality of such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user, besides his insults on the valid Daco-Romanian continuity theory (which is the main item at stake here and the main reason for the presence of Hungarian voters) and ridiculous claims as being a Hoax, is also WP:CANVASS-ing illegally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, I suggest. Yes, my opinion is that Daco-Romanian continuity is false, ridiculous and scientifically unfounded, but I hope there is still freedom of opinion here. Furthermore I tried to involve more editors to this debate, because it's getting stale and we start to argue with each other's political identity (as evidenced by your above comment). WP:Hungary is only one of the projects where I have written. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll pretend that we don't realize that you posted on other Wikiproject talk pages only after Codrin.B expressed here his concerns about a possible canvassing case ;). If I were you, I would have given the pretext that a portion of Hungary was once a part of the Dacian kingdom :) 79.117.188.152 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing = I tell somebody how to vote. Well, that did not happen. Significant part of today's Romania belonged to Hungary until 1918/20, so this article is of interest to the Hungarian project (and whole Central Europe, of course). --Norden1990 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silly or not the Daco-Romanian continuity's theory exists, as well as the theory that some of Romanian's words are coming all the way back from Dacian. The theory is very notable, as a large sum of schoolars have poured lots of ink on works with pros and cons. The article needs improvements, but I disagree with deletion. All the best, --Silenzio76 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The debate is not about the validity of a theory, but about the relevance of an article the subject of which is a list of words of unknown origin. Those who suggest that it should be deleted say that there is no need to maintain such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, please see AdiJapan's remark from below the list is notable and was used, again and again, to debate or to defend the theory that Romanian language started as a mixture of Latin and Dacian. Those whom support the deletion of this article using Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary misinterpret the policy. This article is not about a single word. The article is not complete, and shall not be treated as a simple list, the list shall be just a section of the article. The list is a notable encyclopedic subject, no question of that. --Silenzio76 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the purpose of the article seems to be to point out that the Romanian language has Dacian origin words, I tend to agree with Kitfoxxe that any list of words is essentially a type of dictionary. The main article on the Romanian language mentions the historical debate about the origin of the Romanian language, and it seems to me anything that sources from this list could add to an encyclopedia could be included there without getting too much like a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By this principle, all the word lists from Category:Lists_of_loanwords should be deleted. True? 86.126.34.91 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they serve functionally as a dictionary as this one does. Some of them, however, contain significant encyclopedic content beyond simply a list of words, and thus should be kept. It is a case by case issue, and I do not think that this one provides enough extra value to be more than a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can we please not veer into bizarre declarations, such as "this article is a hoax"? We are talking about a theory - disputed, debated, perhaps discredited - but nonetheless a theory with some stature and adherence.
On that note, I found something rather interesting. I did a Google Books search for three of the more common of these words, gard, grumaz and copil, which don't normally appear together except as part of this list.
Behold the results. Book after book after book reproducing more or less the same list. Pretty conclusive evidence that this has topic been treated by reliable sources, I'd say.
Now, you might say the books are influenced by communism/nationalism/parochialism/protochronism/romanticism/legionnairism/whatever. Or that they're outdated. But you cannot legitimately claim they are all part of an elaborate hoax stretching across 130 years that we should all just ignore. As I've shown, there is ample coverage of this very list in published scientific works. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The list is an encyclopedic subject in itself. It doesn't matter if those words are truly of Dacian origin; what matters is that many authors have compiled such lists (all of which overlap significantly or are even identical) and studied and discussed this set of words extensively. It is almost impossible to find a book on the history of the Romanian language that does not contain such a list or a subset of it. As Biruitorul said above, on Google Books there are over 100 works in various languages that contain this list in one shape or another. For the same reason, the article belongs here in Wikipedia, not in Wiktionary; moving it there is certainly not the solution. — AdiJapan 15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter??? sorry, but it is a shame. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this opinion, I also could create a List of Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin. There are also "reliable" sources about that. This article is completely a hoax, I maintain my position. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian-Sumerian connections constitute pseudoscientific or at best fringe views (as shown by mainstream criticism and lack of mainstream acceptance). The same would need to be shown here for the two cases to be compareable. There is nothing a priori implausible about Dacian loanwords in Romanian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tropylium, the subject of the debate is not the validity of the list, but its notability. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between the two cases that Romanian politics and "science" support this absurd theory, while Hungarian historiography has no need for self-justification and nation-building. Nevertheless I do not dispute the validity of Daco-Romanian continuity article. However this article is based on a dubious source and "Notes" section clearly indicates that these words are not of Dacian origin. On this basis, Arpad and Ur are also words of Hungarian origin. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all nations' historiography serves national-building purposes, and there are significant Hungarian historians who played or play this role. I could mention (and I have several times mentined) stupid theories proposed by Hungarian academics as well: all scholars are human beings and they often make mistakes. Moreover, the debate is not about the role of certain theories in the national-building process, but the notability and reliability of the list. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I must urge you to restrain this type of inflammatory rhetoric. No one has mentioned politicians, I'm not aware of politicians who have opined about this topic, and in any case no one has proposed citing political declarations.

On the other hand, yes, your contempt notwithstanding, Constantin Frâncu is a scientist - a linguist, in fact. So is Maria Cvasnîi Cătănescu. And Gheorghe Guler. And Mihai Bărbulescu - indeed, a member of the Romanian Academy.

Or what about this text, published in Germany by Harrassowitz Verlag? Or this one, from Walter de Gruyter, also in Germany? Have German academic publishers been fooled into publishing about a fraud?

The point of the list is not to validate a theory. The theory's notability (as opposed to its accuracy) is confirmed by its routine coverage in reliable texts, which means the article must be kept, per WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, as I mentioned above, the list of Hungarian words of Sumerian origin are also mentioned in reliable sources, because they refuse it.

Fakirbakir, the Earth is not flat, yet we do have the Flat Earth article. There is no flying spagetti monster, yet we do have the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. So no, it does not matter if the theory about the Dacian origin of those words is right or wrong. What matters is that the theory itself exists and that it is notable. — AdiJapan 09:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think that we need a list (an article) with all of the 160 Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. Maybe some interesting point should move to the Romanian language article. - Rovibroni (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, would you delete the hundred or so articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin? --Codrin.B (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check template of the bottom of List of English words of Irish origin article. - Rovibroni (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major loanword strata are entirely encyclopedic topics, even if the etymologies of individual words may not be.
Words where the listed competing etymologies have been deemed more probable should perhaps be omitted, if reliable secondary sources assessing the question can be located. If this can be shown to be the case for the vast majority, perhaps a second shot at a deletion (or a merger into Eastern Romance substratum) could be considered, but the mere existence of competing proposals is an insufficient reason for deletion. Some cleanup may indeed be in order, e.g. some discussion on the Dacian loan originals (and if these are attested or reconstructed) would be a beneficial addition, but for the purposes of this discussion that's neither here not there. AFD is not for cleanup or POV issues. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trɔpʏliʊm, can you imagine that all Romanian words would be listed in separate articles according to their (actual or proposed) origin? "List of Romanian words of Latin origin", "List of Romanian words of proto-Slavic origin", "List of Romanian words of Bulgarian origin", "List of Romanian words of Hungarian origin" ..... And should we create such lists of all words of all the languages of the world? Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice to create such lists. There are 15 such lists for Spanish words: Category:Lists of Spanish words of foreign origin. Eurocentral (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I think these list should not be subject of an article (2) even if we accept the idea, that such lists could be created, we should not create articles on words "of possible .... origin". Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole science of linguistics is based on possible word origins and etymologies, and they change, as the research evolves. What are you talking about?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree mostly with User:Rovibroni, but I also have to mention, that the article is not even in coherency with itself. Most of the words listed in the article has beside them in the "Notes - Alternative etymologies" section a denial, why aren't they in fact inherited from the dacian language. However, according to my opinion, keeping or deleting this article shouldn't be based on the question of nationality. As I see, this nomination for deletion have started to be an indirect war between the romanian and hungarian users. --Szabi237 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Szabi237, you are wrong: please cheque the nationality involved in the above debate, this is not a debate among Hungarian and Romanian editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your dear Szabi237 is not wrong. Look at the illegal WP:CANVASS-ing done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Codrinb, also look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. I know that in your world there are lots of chauvinistic, nationalistic, fasist, irredentist Hungarians in every corner who have been conspiring for secret dark purposes, but especially against the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. However, it is your own world, not ours. Would you please try to forget nationality in debates. I have several times made the same suggestion to Hungarian editors as well. In my world, referring to anybody's nationality in a negativ context is a most primitive and an extremely simple-minded approach. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the chronology of the edits. Norden1990 put the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin one hour after Codrin.B reported the canvassing here, so it can be a consequence of it. However I am not outraged, because the most active Hungarian users already commented here. Peace! 86.126.35.222 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The whole action to delete this article seems an attempt to censor the work of few specialists; work started more than 100 years ago. The article is an important encyclopedic topic related to the Dacian language. If the article needs improvements, the deletion attempt is dubious. It is strange too that users without expertize on Dacian language propose and support this deletion. Cui bono? -- Saturnian (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole list with its counter theories is just an assumption and may be completely wrong. It is not properly sourced. Honestly, it is rather laughable. The only "reliable" source is Russu's study (Olteanu's work is self-published?), however his method is more than questionable (see its talkpage, you can read there an expert's opinion about Russu's study). Moreover we should not really use communist sources because they were unfortunately quite biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of the article for details on the work and credentials of the authors you cheaply attempt to discredit, in-lieu of better arguments.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that Romanian historiography was controlled by the Communist authorities? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about lingustics not historiography. And what are you here? A judge at the communism's trial? Do you think that between 1948-1989, the linguists and archaeologists who did research way before communism got installed, such as Russu, became some sort of retards who produced nothing but crap hence forth?! In books from that era, you have to filter the propaganda, but they contain a lot of valid science as well. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a certain game I've seen played before, and it's discouraging to see it played yet again. It goes something like this:
- Romanian historiography from before 1938 is not to be taken into account, because it's either "obsolete" or "romantic nationalist".
- Same for the 1938-1944 period, because it's "fascist".
- Same for the 1944-1989 period, because it's "communist".
- Same for the 1990s, and, while we're at it, up to the present, because it's "nationalist".
Are there works we should ignore because of inherent unscientific biases? Absolutely. Especially in the period 1948-1965, when historiography really was subservient to the Party line. But to say that nothing from a certain period can be taken into account simply because of the nature of the regime is terribly short-sighted. Take this as a random example: yes, it's from 1975, but it also happens to be by Giurescu père et fils, two pre-eminent historians and members of the Romanian Academy (by merit, not by political criteria). So of course it's acceptable as a source, provided any blatant propaganda is filtered out.
Also. If the word "Dacia" is giving people such a conniption, there are alternatives available. List of possible substrate words in Romanian, for example. But that is a matter for the editing process, which is why this contentious AfD should close before more needless vitriol gets thrown around.
Finally. There has been some comparison with the Sumerian idea as linked to Hungarian. While that one is probably more fanciful than anything related to Dacia, I have absolutely no objection to an article on the Sumerian-Hungarian hypothesis, provided it's sourced from reliable material. In fact, I'd be quite interested in finding out more about this idea. So please, anyone who's interested, go ahead and start the article, complete with a word list. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, I think you suggested a logical approach. I also agree with you that we should not blame on individual scholars that they had to live in a lunatic century. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the point of the article is "these things exists", then lets avoid Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and just write an article about the continuity of these words with references to a list or lists of them. If these lists don't exist anywhere else, then OR and POV apply because the subject is not WP:Notable; and our mention of the subject should be moved to articles about the individual "notable academics". Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll excuse you for not reading the wall of text above that carefully; book after book after book reproduces virtually the same list, so there is no question of original research.
- No one is trying to create a dictionary here. This article simply records a list that has appeared in many works across well over a century. And I don't see 160 entries as being overly large; have you lately checked out List of English words of French origin (0-9) and (A-C), List of English words of French origin (D-I), List of English words of French origin (J-R) or List of English words of French origin (S-Z)? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll return the kindness of your excuse by pointing out that although you properly addressed the "If" secondary objections of my delete vote, your cited objection to my core reason for casting a delete vote was specifically addressed as a non-supported objection to the WP policy I cited. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary specifically states "dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length". As you point out "This article simply records a list"...with no context, no wiki-reference for the reader on why this is encyclopedia. That is the very spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should be avoided (the core reason for my Delete vote).
  - As I suggested, an article placing this subject in context is more appropriate than a list. If there were significant academic coverage of the subject, a break away list might be warranted. But I don't even see how this topic can alone warrant its won article given that only a single academic notable enough for a Wikipedia article is credited to the topic. Whereas your Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument is supported with articles putting the French to English list in context (i.e., Latin influence in English) and a robust academic literature from multiple authors supports the findings. At best I think the list we are debating should be a section on Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu's biography article. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why do we need two articles about the same subject???: List of reconstructed Dacian words Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a similar subject, but not the same. This one contains Romanians words, while the other one is formed of allegged Dacian words. 79.117.188.152 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think I miss the point. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One is a list of words in Romanian, a modern language with some 25 million speakers and which has been continuously written down for some five centuries. One is a list of words thought to have been used by the Dacians, who spoke a language that has been dead for close to 2000 years and which does not survive in written form. The topics are discrete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not have any problem with the concept and the list, as long as it reflects the mainstream view of linguists. However, it seems that for most of the listed words the majority of modern scholars accept another theories (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek, etc., origin). I do not see too much point of keeping lists only supported by fringe theories, unless they have relevance from some other (e.g., historical, cultural) point of view. On the other hand, I am not a linguist, so if someone can demonstrate with a range of modern linguistic sources that it is indeed the mainstream view that these words are of Dacian origin or that this list has historical importance, then the article could stay (but should be renamed in the latter case). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If your major problem is with the title, I have stated above that I have no objection to renaming something like List of possible substrate words in Romanian. If that is the case, keep but rename would be a better option.
- Also, see this text, published in Germany by Harrassowitz Verlag, and this one, from Walter de Gruyter, another German academic publisher. Even if they do not say outright that the words are of possible Dacian origin, the fact is that we have impeccable sources from outside Romania indicating the importance of this list of words. There are substrate words in Romanian, and this is acknowledged by most texts on the language, regardless of how exactly they term the phenomenon. How we title the list and how we present it are matters for the editing process, but its very notability is not in doubt, nor is it purely studied by the fringe. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite interesting to read statements like this from a linguistic site: "It is noteworthy that Rumanian does not contain words of Dacian origin, while it shares some old-Balkan and non-Latin terms with Albanian." [10] (and it is not even a Hungarian site :-))Fakirbakir (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still thinking that we have two articles about the same subject. "List of reconstructed Dacian words" has its own section about this matter:List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_words#Reconstruction_from_Romanian_and_Albanian_words Fakirbakir (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something indicating that these words are not actually of Dacian origin. The theory is notable and well-referenced, but since it's not actually true, we shouldn't imply its validity in the title. Ma^t_chups 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact no sample of Dacian language survived, so the theory can't ascertained as being true or false 79.117.179.57 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the listed words are Illyrian? The title is quite comfy for someone who supports only "Dacian" origin. It is clearly biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this theory has important academic support, of course that a renaming could be taken into consideration 86.126.33.49 (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, perhaps to Dacian substrate theory - The page can probably be improved to be more of an article. I'm not sure it should have a list format. -PC-XT+ 02:33, 19 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hryniewiecki[edit]

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

Unreferenced for several years, major notability concerns. Pl wiki article is not about family, but coat of arms (which may have separate notability, but there's little to salvage from here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete One non-redlinked name does not a notable family make, especially since it's apparently two families who happen to share a name. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus and Mangoe. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:33, 16 November 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 - non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Value Partners (management consultant)[edit]

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

No sources indicating notability as defined at WP:CORP, and I did not see anything online that was met the requirements for independence and depth. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG - no coverage in any reliable, independent sources. Promotional yellow pages entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I'm intrigued by statements in the article that presumably don't say what they meant (translation nuance), I am seeing nothing that indicates or verifies WP:CORPDEPTH notability. (Note that there are other firms of similar names: a Hong Kong based hedge fund and MBS Value Partners in the USA.) AllyD (talk) 08:07, 15 November 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 Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey device[edit]

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

Per WP:NAD. This term seems to be a non-notable technical term, and the article is not well referenced, only citing a PDF file on the term from a tube testing business. Not sure it meets the notability requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems worthwhile. I've added half a dozen references to the article. The concept is clearly in wide use in its domain, being used by different companies and journals on the subject. I'd note, however, that the article may not be well named; the author has created redirects for 'bogey/bogie tube', but perhaps 'bogey value' (for parameters) would be the best target as the central concept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually looks much better now than it did when I nominated it for deletion, and thank you for finding the sources. I am fine with Keeping and Moving to "Bogey Value". TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bromcom[edit]

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

Pure advertisement of a non-notable company. The army of single-purpose accounts contributing to that article—Lt06097, Tiger1954, Denizguryel, Hkutlay, and StacyLarkin—rings the sockpuppet alarm. In fact, I have opened a corresponding sockpuppet investigation. bender235 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not a good article. Its filed account show a turnover of £60M but assets under £2M, which probably indicates that it is being financed by directors' loans. [11] . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, this article needs massive pruning but the sources given show the company has "...been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:08, 15 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus in the discussion that this is not a valid redirect and can not exist. Furthermore, I will move Lingdian (band) to this place, per WP:BOLD and following the suggestions in the discussion. Everybody who disagrees with the move part is welcome to revert me and to open the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lingdian[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS. Has only one bluelinked entry. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lingdian (band) as that's a reasonable search term and redirects are cheap. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lingdian (band). A redirect to the one use of the term on WP is best, as this seems reasonable search term. It looks like there may be a Lingdian music genre and Lingdian appears to be a location or town in China, so no prejudice to DAB recreation if articles on these other two uses of the term are created. --Mark viking (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dab page and Move the band to the undisambiguated term (as an unopposed Technical Move). This is an invalid dab page, and there is no need for a disambiguator in the title of the article about the band. This should probably have been done as part of the tidying up after the deletion of Lingdian (genre) in May 2013. PamD 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after Boleyn's addition; let's hope someone creates an entry for the location too. PamD 14:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Lingdian (band) to the primary page. As first entry doesn't meet MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABMENTION or have an article, this would meet the criteria for speedy deletion: [Template:db-disambig]. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem - absolute delete the redlink (genre), I believe the "genre" doesn't exist, it is a misreading to the Mongolian-folk-Chinese rock genre as exemplified by Lingdian (band), which is not called "Lingdian genre" as the band is well known but not that famous.

....However, User:Taylor Trescott, User:PamD, User:Mark viking, User:Uncle Milty, User:Boleyn unfortunately there's a problem with removing (band) from band article. Anyone familiar with China is far more likely to be looking for Horizon / Lingdian the opinion polling company which is widely cited in the media and covered in Google Books. Horizon / Lingdian is already mentioned in passing in footnotes of articles but wasn't actually "covered" per WP:DAB until I added Lingdian just now to Market research and opinion polling in China. Very very dubious that Lingdian (band) can claim to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If (band) is considered more important than the market research firm then a hatnote to the stub covering the firm should be added to the band. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to keep Added entry In ictu oculi mentioned, per MOS:DABMENTION. Now valid page. Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 2 November 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:27, 7 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - normally I would try not to relist for a second time, but Lingdian (band) itself is currently at AfD and has also just been relisted. I think the result of that discussion will have implications on how this dab is dealt with. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the band there. WP:TWODABS applies. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IIO said: "Anyone familiar with China is far more likely to be looking for Horizon" Can you prove it, or it is speculation? Also, why "removing the (band)" is a problem? Lingdian being redirected to Lingdian (band) is a violation of WP:PRECISION and the real intention of using disambiguators, as explained here: "As initially proposed (move "All the Wrong Places (song)" to "All the Wrong Places"), this RM was uncontroversial and could have been requested as a technical move (WP:G6)". The fact that if you redirect Lingdian to Lingdian (band) is like redirecting The Farmer's Daughter to The Farmer's Daughter (1947 film); it has no sense that that page redirects there, but it is the same result as here. You would say "someone that is searching the company would not confuse it with the band". False (or unproved), I would be confusing if I search "The Beatles" and I end up at "The Beatles (band)", that's confusing. Any reader can read, and any reader will read "Ling Dian ... are a Inner Mongolian Chinese rock band." Ignoring the fact that at the beginning it may include the note "((About|the Chinese band|the Chinese company|Lingdian (company)))"--ignoring there is no article about it, and it is not our labor to make the company notable. If it is mentioned at Market research and opinion polling in China (all these articles created by you just to create ambiguation) is irrelevant to this discussion. Or you create the article Lingdian (company), that passes WP:A7, or there's nothing to disambiguate. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move per Tbhotch. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 22 November 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. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lingdian (band)[edit]

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

I might be missing something, but I don't see how this article is establishing any form of notability necessary for meeting the criteria at WP:BAND. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay lets check the list:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (This includes genre-specific charts).
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

How many of these apply? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the nominator on this, it's not too obvious to me. I wish for something less rhetorical, please. --Cold Season (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 8 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Article on official Xinhua News Agency calls it one of the most famous rock bands in China. A Google search on its Chinese name returns almost a half million results: [12], including numerous articles on mainstream news portals. -Zanhe (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above passes WP:BAND#1. To IIO, this article clearly deserved a WP:A7 nomination. Should we check all of your articles created to verify they meet the minimal criteria of notability? You don't deserve this, but we neither deserve to start the nomination of pages that mentions nothing but a rephrase of the title of the page. Rather than make copy-pastes of pages, and quotefarms, start to do this to the pages you create, rather than left the articles "adrift at the sea" until someone notices they meet the XFD criteria. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Tbhotch, your trolling and stalking apart, if you read the deletion guidelines you'll find out that existence of related articles (interwiki articles on the band and singer) and sources should be checked as part of AFD policy. A good editor will look at print sources before tagging an article. You show me an article you have created on a China band and show me how good your creations are. The purpose of a WP:STUB is just that, a stub to a notable subject inviting other editors to build on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "stalking", I found this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations after I nominated G+. Once again stop creating crappy articles and complaining about their eventual XFD process. Or you create a decent article, or simply don't create it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: No what you're spouting is nonsense. If you knew this article could have passed the notability standard, you should have wrote it to pass the notability standard from the very beginning. The fact that you waited for this to come to AFD before improving it beyond a speedy deletion standard is disconcerting to say the least. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, a couple of questions:

(1). When you placed the AFD what reason did you have to believe that WP:BAND criteria 1 had not been passed:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

China With a Cut: Globalisation, Urban Youth and Popular Music - Page 87 2010 "Globalisation, Urban Youth and Popular Music. JVC Hong Kong has licensed the Mongolian pop-rock band Ling Dian from Jingwen for the market outside China. ... Ling Dian has chosen to express their emotions through their music."
World Music Volumn 2 Latin and North America Caribean India Asia Broughton, Simon, Ellingham, Mark, Richard Trillo - 2000 ... - Page 53 "Fancy praising Maoist communist ideals ("The East is Red", ther), Lingdian (Zero Point), Zhinanzhen (Compass),"
Edward L. Davis - Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture 2009 - Page 712 "Black Panther turned to pop rock, a genre that is also popular with Zang Tianshuo, Point Zero (Lingdian), Baojia Rd. No.43"

These three sources were already in the article when you placed the AFD, so what is the problem with these 3 sources?

(2). WP:IDEALSTUB states: "When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted" - was there not enough context for other editors to expand this stub? (with or without reference to zh.wp's two articles on the band and lead singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 19 November 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 deleted, blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas (film)[edit]

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

Despeedied and deprodded, this appears to me to be an outright hoax. Or at the very least there's not a thing to verify a single claim, or even that it exists. I've tried the company website, G searches, etc. Can anyone find anything reliable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 15 November 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 University of North Texas#Traditions. The redirect target contains the information. The only thing it doesn't contain is the lyrics, but that's schoolcruft. If someone wishes to insert the lyrics into the Traditions section, they can go ahead, and then discuss it on the talk page there. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glory to the Green and White[edit]

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

The same basic issues I had with a separate article on the school's fight song, which were: No independent sources, not notable, etc. As per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Runfellow (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Runfellow (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not delete. See WP:PRESERVE. Merge and redirect this to University of North Texas#Traditions where it is already discussed and sourced. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of North Texas#Traditions. Fails WP:GNG so not suitable for a standalone page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, there is currently a consensus that we are talking about one event case.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Elsie Lie[edit]

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

Non-notable murder, no lasting effect. Page has been blanked due to BLP concerns, so click here to read it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep, AfD banner should not be removed until the process is complete. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to add the AfD banner due to the article being fully protected due to AndyTheGrump and The Devil's Advocate's current dispute. I have contacted the protecting admin with a request to tag the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been now tagged. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know... there is a lengthy mention of the murder in this book that was published through Marshall Cavendish this year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I strongly object to this article having been blanked rather than taken to AfD for decision. Trout for Mr. Grump. (See the article in the history...) Carrite (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a compendium of true crime stories. No historic importance. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable event. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:02, 16 November 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.