< 3 November	5 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of W.I.T.C.H. items

[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of W.I.T.C.H.. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe this should be renamed to Universe of W.I.T.C.H. and all these in-universe articles about planes, worlds, and cities merged into it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unsourced list of plot devices for a show with middling popularity (the W.I.T.C.H. articles have a track record of many successful AfD's because of lack of sources). All primary sources and sourcing is terrible. Nate • (chatter) 05:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Nate said. LK (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess nobody likes my idea. OK, forget that, then. I'll go along with the consensus to just delete it for notability reasons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 5 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Kandrakar

[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly non-notable plot details that are unnecessary to the understanding of W.I.T.C.H. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 5 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) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf (NES video game)

[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Fails WP:GNG for a lack of independent reliable sources which offer significant coverage of the game. PROD declined with the assertion of sources having been found, but the two sources are one paragraph from a several hundred page compendium and a second paragraph in another several hundred page compendium. These trivial mentions do not meet the threshold for notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:20, 4 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) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this from the sources on the page. Also, there's Google. Could anyone judge whether any of these reviews are good enough for WP:GNG? (I don't have time to go through them.) If not, redirecting to Airwolf#Merchandise could be a possible solution, though there is a disambig in the title. Ansh6 6 6 01:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay then, keep per Bushranger. Ansh6 6 6 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those sources do in fact establish notability. From precedent at AfD, it should be noted that siginficantly lesser coverage has been argued to establish notability before. There are also additional sources that were not used that establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, trivial mentions in directories of every video game ever released establish that the game exists, not that the game is notable. And of course you're aware that the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean anything, and linking to a " no consensus" debate seems an odd tactic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also additional sources that were not used that establish notability." Remember that sources must only exist to meet notability - they need not be in the article itself. Ansh6 6 6 18:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There do seem to be reviews out there, and a few of them even look like they might be reliable sources. Not exactly drowning in notability, but I guess The Bushranger is right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per adequate coverage in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. We don't need a whole book about the subject, and a whole, detailed paragraph in a book is significant coverage. Cavarrone 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in notable secondary sources. So what if it's only "one paragraph long"? Things noted with an entry in more than one work of reference should handily clear our notability bar. Ford MF (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about an NES game published by Akklaim for a Nintendo System should be kept. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 10 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mwamba Alexis Nyange

[edit]

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

Autobiography w/o sources. OP removed a BLPPROD. Claims lofty positions, being the son of an ex-president then claims to have a different father down the page. Borderline CSD-A7 but let the community decide. Alexf^(talk) 21:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 15:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as nom. — Alexf^(talk) 12:23, 11 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 Halifax Regional School Board. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford South School

[edit]

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

Elementary schools/junior high schools are not usually notable unless they have accomplished some sort of miraculous feat. Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:OUTCOMES. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board per usual practice for nn elementary and junior high schools. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 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. The consensus is that this does not meet the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks Middle School shooting

[edit]

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

WP:EVENT not satisfied. No lasting effect. Just another sad but average murder. List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2000s says all there is to know. Beerest355 Talk 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any lasting significance, the location of the shooting and the age of the shooter do not attach any particular notability to the incident. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be added to List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2000s PeteBaltar (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PeteBaltar, it is already on that list. It also obviously happened in the 2010s, not 2000s. Also, this is a pretty notable school shooting case and many people around the country have heard about it. Shootings at middle schools are rare. If this should be deleted, then why should Chardon High School shooting, Weston High School shooting, and SuccessTech Academy shooting still remain? Nobody except the shooter died at SuccessTech Academy, and only one person died at Weston High School. They also did not receive too much media attention after they happened. Cyanidethistles (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Anything worth noting could be merged into the appropriate school shooting article.LM2000 (talk) 23:45, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Ulrich Count of Luxburg

[edit]

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

I am unable to find any sources verifying the information in this article. None of the reference provided mention him. Google search comes up with other people called Friedrich von Luxburg but nothing about him. ~~If it's not a hoax, then~~ I question the notability of this subject. ... discospinster _talk 20:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some results for Friedrich Ulrich Maximilian Johann Graf von Luxburg but they don't give much information as they are mainly directory entries. ... discospinster _talk 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable person.Maybe self-promo.--Yopie (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having inspected the alleged references in this article and waded through a few of the external links, I have concluded that the gentleman probably exists, but not in the form displayed in the article. He certainly does not appear to be notable. Del per this and per nom. Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article has been edited to remove a large tranche of probably irrelevant information. It appears to be a better article, but it does not appear to be about a notable gentleman. Fiddle Faddle 13:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --Drm310 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An autobiography of a NN person claiming to be of German (or possibly Swiss) nobility. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Pie

[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG/WP:WEB. The source list, which looks impressive at first glance, is largely press releases, trivial mentions, deadlinks and blog posts. The article is promotional and in fact plagiarizes some of the press-releases. See also this related AFD. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Abecedare. I, too, clicked on the "Reuters" and "Wall Street Journal" refs and saw two copies of a press release which was distributed via Globe Newswire. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:20, 4 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 Deleted as G11 (by User:Jimfbleak) (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgeadvisors

[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORG, also WP:PROMO and poorly sourced. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedyable as Promo. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 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. There were no arguments for deletion except for the nominator PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California locations by race

[edit]

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

Bundling in the following:

Wikipedia is explicitly not a collection of statisitics. and clearly, that is all this article consists of, it is nothing but a regurgitation of census data for California. The purpose of Wikipedia is to share knowledge, this is just information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I am abstaining from voting because I am the author of this article, as well as two similar articles: California locations by income and California locations by voter registration.

Keep. Note, however, that I am the author of this article, as well as two similar articles: California locations by income and California locations by voter registration.

I would tend to disagree with the nominator~~, however~~. First of all, saying that "Wikipedia is explicitly not a collection of statisitics" is a bit misleading. WP:NOTSTATS redirects you to a subsection entitled "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and the third item of that list states that Wikipedia is not a place for excessive listings of statistics. What we're deciding is whether these articles meet this criteria.

Also, that item points out that "long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." I don't think that these articles do any of these things. It states to "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists", which is precisely what I did.

On the other hand, if articles like this should be deleted, that would imply that we should delete many similar articles as well, such as the locations by per capita income articles for all fifty states and List of highest-income counties in the United States, as well as subsections like the list of congressional districts by the Cook Partisan Voter Index. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information specifically mentions the article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 as a case in which an article like this is necessary.

That said, if the decision were made to delete these articles, I would certainly support the creation of a "Wikistat" website for data like this. Extent Midpoint (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to ask the nominator what (s)he means by "The purpose of Wikipedia is to share knowledge, this is just information." Wiktionary defines that sense of knowledge as "The total of what is known; all information and products of learning." In other words, all information is knowledge. And I would certainly think that these articles constitute a part of "the total of what is known." Extent Midpoint (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to get all wiki-lawyer about the definitions of things, perhaps you should look up the definition of "abstain" as that is clearly not what you are doing. In any event, what we have here is a massive table of census data. So, this Wikipedia article is nothing but a long list of data that is already freely available from the census itself. that strikes me as the very definition of excessive amounts of statistics. No analysis, indeed no prose of any kind is present and the only citations are to the census website where the data was obtained. Wiktionary's definition aside, I would argue that there is in fact a distinction between actual knowledge and mere information. On top of that, the big table is so long that one can't really tell what's what unless they are o looking at the very top of it. And lastly WP:OTHERSTUFF is not generally considered a valid argument in a deletion discussion. On the other hand, since the other two articles you created are pretty much exactly the same thing with the same issues I have bundled them into this nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way a good way to get some clue of the difference between knowledge and information is to compare these articles with Demographics of California which is an actual encyclopedia article on these same subjects, meaning in addition to the other problems I have identified these are also redundant to an existing article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that Extent Midpoint, there is no need to abstain from giving your recommendation on these articles. AfD welcomes inputs from all editors and there are no conflict of interest rules in this venue to prevent your opinion from being voiced. --Mark viking (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what he is doing is not abstaining anyway. You don't abstain from voicing your opinion by saying "I abstain! now here's three paragraphs of arguments explaining my position." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is indeed abstaining, in the sense that he has not registered his recommendation as a boldfaced 'keep', 'delete' or other action. By longstanding AfD convention, those boldfaced words are the editor's summary of, or verdict on, their position. I myself write comment entries when I have something to contribute, but have not yet decided what is to be done. Those entries may have keep or delete implications, but do not imply a final recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, it seems that what's bothering you is that there is no prose in the article, and the tables that are present are very long. You are certainly right about that. I'm curious about what you think the "data to prose ratio" should be. I can't find a specific guideline regarding articles like the ones I created; it would be helpful something like that existed. I do think, however, if the articles above were deleted, then we should also remove articles like Highest-income ZCTAs in the United States, which also have next to no prose in them. (What's more, that article contains data that's more than a decade old.) Go ahead and bundle that article in if you'd like, and see "Income in the United States" template at the top right-hand corner of that article for more.

I abstained from voting, not voicing my opinion. If it bothers you, I can change my "vote" from "abstain" to "keep", but I'm not even sure if the number of "votes" directly influences the final decision. Extent Midpoint (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't a vote but a discussion it doesn't really matter what bolded word you choose to put in front of your comments. As you apparently knew that I am confused as to why you ever thought what you were doing was abstaining but let's not get hung up on that as it isn't the point.

There is no specific guidance on a statistics-to-prose ratio but I would imagine something higher than 100/0 is what most of us would expect. I don't see the point of having articles that are not articles at all but merely lists of data that is already freely available elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not the database of every statistic ever collected. We already have a proper encyclopedia article on the broader topic (which I now see you were already aware of since you added a "see also" link to it) and you have been adding the relevant data to the articles on the individual places so I don't see any encyclopedic purpose to having a bunch of raw data that is just copied from another website. That is not an encyclopedia article, regardless of the fact that there may be others like it. (again see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why this is generally not considered a valid argument) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be freely available in terms of price, but certainly not in terms of time and effort. Constructing those tables was a painful exercise in data storage and manipulation, inner joins and scripting. The new American FactFinder interface is less than superb, and it certainly will not let you generate anything like those tables. Saying that these tables are a 'regurgitation' could be accurate, but only if extensive data processing counts as part of the 'regurgitation' process.

If the articles are deleted, would I be able to repost them as subpages of my user page, e.g. User:Extent Midpoint/California locations by income? Extent Midpoint (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point, the nominator's (explained) arguments haven't been very strong. Let's look at each one of them in detail.

1. "Wikipedia is explicitly not a collection of statistics." I haven't seen a guideline that (explicitly) says this, and WP:NOTSTATS certainly doesn't (see next item).

2. They are excessive lists of statistics per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, third item (also WP:NOTSTATS, third item). This argument is composed of five subarguments:

2a. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. (Emphasis mine.) I wouldn't imagine the "lists" (if you can call tables "lists") would be confusing to readers. And they certainly do not "reduce the readability and neatness of [any] articles."

2b. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. The tables are self-explanatory. But I will gladly add any text necessary should there be any potential for confusion (I doubt it). (Edit: I've done this today.)

2c. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. This very guideline acknowledges there are some cases when data like this is necessary, and links directly to an article similar to my own.

2d. Consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. I did that.

2e. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely. The articles are necessary because otherwise it would be very difficult to figure out where locations rank with respect to one another in terms of various characteristics (see item 5.)

3. "It is nothing but a regurgitation of census data for California." Only if extensive data processing counts as regurgitation (see next item). (Edit: I've added prose to these articles, so this argument no longer stands.)

4. "This article is nothing but a long list of data that is already freely available from the census itself." Like I said, freely available in terms of cost, but not time and effort. I challenge you to use American FactFinder to generate tables containing all the data in these articles. It's just not possible. Programming knowledge and extensive data processing is required to display the containing county/ies for each place, and to replace numbers with percents. You can't even join different tables together; only individual tables are displayed. In the case of California locations by voter registration, the primary source of the data is the California Secretary of State, not the Census Bureau. That table doesn't provide population data, either. Displaying population data required a complicated inner join for data of different sources. (Edit: I've added prose to these articles, so this argument no longer stands.)

5. "No analysis, indeed no prose of any kind is present." Like I said, the tables speak for themselves. If you want prose, tell me what kind you want. I'd be happy to add it. Prose can also be added by others. And you said yourself that there are no guidelines regarding how much prose should be in an article. (Edit: I've added prose to these articles, so this argument no longer stands.)

I think other arguments should be provided. Extent Midpoint (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename List of California locations by United States Census race and ethnicity (data?), as that's the only source, might as well say so. to address the lack of text: just add some. here: "This is a list of California locations by United States Census race and ethnicity. The list is derived from US Census data from 2010." und so weiter. I dont like the length of the main table, you lose track of which column is what, but massaging data into a new form strikes me as very useful. i have never been to the us census data site, and may never go, despite being a "datahead", so i imagine others may feel the same. As a list, this is definable, sourced, has very strict inclusion criteria, and has some discernable educational value, in a form measurably different than the source of the data.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I've added prose to each one of these articles, which addresses most of your concerns (also, see above). You may want to consider withdrawing your nomination. To avoid any confusion, I've explicitly changed my vote to keep, while keeping the notice that states that I am the author of these articles. Extent Midpoint (talk) 21:08, 7 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Salazar e Bragança

[edit]

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

Unsourced bio; there are doubts that the person ever existed, see also the talk page of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating, for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything on the Spanish name (that doesn't trace back to Wikipedia). Same with the father, João Fernando Salazar, who was supposedly married to royalty (his name should show up somewhere). The article author's edit history shows specific knowledge of topics related to Nicaragua (where Pablo Salazar supposedly lived). Maybe these people exist but if sources are kept private there's nothing we can do. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:27, 10 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-deletion (A3). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hyepock

[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Author is the candidate, and he removed PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Nevada gubernatorial election, 2014. No evidence of attained biographical notability; fails WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that User:Chyepock has since blanked the page except for a series of links to his personal website and social media. Hyepock does not meet WP:42, and Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Jinkinson talk to me 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but a redirect is fine with me per AllyD if he gets on the ballot or receives any coverage whatsoever in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luitenent Gadget

[edit]

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

Article is comprised of one sentence and gives us less information than the parent article Gadget and the Gadgetinis. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless much more information becomes available that it cannot exist within the parent articles. PS. Lieutenant is misspelled. Chris857 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No redirect, and misspelled at that. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 5 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 merge to Airwolf. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf Themes

[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-produced soundtrack for a TV series. No independent reliable sources exist to establish the independent notability of this album. Listed sources are to the album's home page and a soundtrack aggregator page. PROD removed based on the fact that the original series composer supposedly collaborated on the project but there still need to be independent reliable sources to establish notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hadn't intended to remove the Prod, but did so when I realized one of the original composers had participated in the project. That doesn't automatically grant notability, but it does lead me to believe there may be some sources out there that can, perhaps in German. - BilCat (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Airwolf. I don't see any reviews. Does not seem notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Airwolf, per WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 02:37, 13 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. (WP:SNOW). Regarding the possibility of a merge (per User:Steelpillow's !vote), a merge discussion can be initiated on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf (helicopter)

[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional element of a notable TV series. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the fictional vehicle separate from the fiction. At first glance the article appears to be well-sourced, but the cited sources that are about the actual fictional helicopter are fan publications and blogs, while other listed sources are about the helicopter upon which the fictional copter is based and other ancillary subjects. The notability of the TV series does not confer notability upon the fictional element. PROD removed with a reference to WP:MOSFICT but nothing in that guideline allows for articles on elements of fiction that are not supported in and of themselves by independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:MOSFICT allows the works themselves to serve as primary information for "descriptive claims", which is the case with this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From MOSFICT: "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources—this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." The work can be used to describe aspects of the fictional element but the work by itself can never establish the separate notability of a fictional element within it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Airwolf the helicopter is, in fact, notable: a search on gBooks turns up a number of source. Also the nominator's campaign against fictional subjects has gone beyond the ability to WP:AGF to a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I expect an immediate apology for this personal attack and abject failure to assume good faith. If you believe I have abused the process, report it in the appropriate forum; don't level lies here in an attempt to sway the debate. You're an administrator; you should know better. Second, there are plenty of sources that discuss the series and plenty that discuss the helicopter on which this fictional helicopter is based but not about the fictional helicopter itself. You seem like you've been around long enough to know that WP:GOOGLE hits are meaningless in these discussions. The sources need to be independent and offer substantial coverage of the fictional helicopter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He gave an opinion, which seems accurate to me also, more so because you chose to lazily PROD them rather than go directly to AFD. Even if he retracts it, I stand by it. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my assertion that both of you are levying bullshit accusations in an effort to save an article (that you started, oops, you lazily forgot to disclose that, huh) by attacking the nominator instead of addressing the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I required to discolose that I created the article? Is it even suggested that doing so is a good idea? Perhaps it's in the notice where one notifies the creator of an AFD or PROD nomination. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no personal attacks, simply an observation. Even if it is not the case it is the way your actions are perceived. You, on the other hand, have egreriously made personal attacks. See also WP:LIARLIAR, and please remember that WP:GHITS is a very, very different thing than gBooks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Fnlayson and BR. Also, the article is as much about the individual aircraft used as Airwolf as it is the fictional aspect. Granted, it could use more/better sources, but the reasonable thing to have done with a long-standing article created by experienced users would have been to tag it for sources and notability first, not slap a on PROD when it should have been obvious the deletion wasn't going to be non-controversial. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—seems to have sufficient WP:GNG notability, both as a specific built aircraft, and as a fictional aircraft. N2e (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help to see evidence of notability. I saw a few articles on Google News that seemed to be about the helicopter itself, independent of the TV series, but they were subscription-only. Many of the Google Books results seem to be a single sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Airwolf. It is notable within the context of the series. Whether or not we need a separate page for it should be based on aricle readability and not on petty rule-bashing. WP:COMMONSENSE, purleeze. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Steelpillow, it makes sense to keep this article as a spinout of the main article on the show, given its size. WP:MOSFICT permits such spinout articles (in rare cases), provided they are sufficiently concise and otherwise adhere to content standards. As a central element of the show that ends up being covered by a lot of the sources that cover the show itself, I think this subject can have a good article written about it. — daranz [ t ] 14:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a perfectly valid offshoot of the series' article. I don't understand the nominator's reasoning, it's fairly obvious that the topic has enough independent coverage to justify a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reasonable main feature of a fictional series that even the nominator agrees is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly is notable .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 6 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. Apart from the nominator, there were no "delete" comments PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Association for Support of Disabled People

[edit]

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

The article doesn't show why is subject notable. No references or sources except link to the official site, which seems to be broken. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unrelated to whether it deserves to be deleted or not, a lot of articles won't show why their subject is notable in the first revision, but unless it's an attack page, copyvio, vandalism or the like the creator should be given some time to develop the page. Nominating a subject which claims notability for deletion just two minutes after creation is bad form. Valenciano (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I highly doubt the nominator adequately performed WP:BEFORE in the 2 minutes between article creation and nomination. Clear violation of WP:DONTBITE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I informed the user about some basic stuff on Wikipedia and I'm putting this discussion on hold. The user has 24 hours to work on article. Then, if the article still meets the criteria for deletion, the discussion will be reopened. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 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. Consensus opposed to deletion - no comment on whether or not to merge though. That can happen through normal editing. v/r - T P 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Thunder (helicopter)

[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional element of a notable film. There are no independent reliable sources that attest to the separate and independent notability of the fictional helicopter itself. There are sources about the helicopter upon which the fictional craft is based but that does not impart notability to the fictional craft. The article is currently sourced to the film's DVD (not independent) and to a non-reliable blog. The unquestioned notability of the film does not confer notability upon any of the fictional elements contained within. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Thunder#Blue Thunder helicopter, as an element of a notable film. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is as much about the individual aircraft used as Blue Thunder as it is the fictional aspect. Granted, it could use more/better sources, but the reasonable thing to have done with a long-standing article created by experienced users would have been to tag it for sources and notability first, not slap a on PROD when it should have been obvious the deletion wasn't going to be non-controversial, as is required by WP:PROD. - BilCat (talk)

"Better" sources? How about any sources that are not either the DVD or a personal fan page? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete—there seem to be no sources that establish WP:GNG notability, either as a specific built aircraft, or as a fictional aircraft. All the current sources are from within the genre of the movie and its making. N2e (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blue Thunder. There are some newspaper articles on Google News that describe the helicopter as the star of the film, but I'm not sure that there's really enough significant coverage of the helicopter by itself, independent of the film, to warrant an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep because well cited and professionally written.--71.135.163.123 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Blue Thunder. It is notable within the context of the series. Whether or not we need a separate page for it should be based on aricle readability and not on petty rule-bashing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly reasonable main feature of a fictional series that even the nominator agrees is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly is notable .... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, if it's so clearly notable, where are all the sources? It should be easy to produce a few. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the age of the series, many (most?) sources are likely to be in print publications. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP per AD & BR's rationales. Nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Thunder#Blue Thunder helicopter per lack of evidence of WP:GNG. There's already due weight content there, and nothing reliably sourced which would warrant even selective merging. The keep !votes are not presenting any sources or valid rationales to demonstrate notability, and the position on offline sources is not whether they are valid but whether we know them to exist. -- Trevj (talk) 02:50, 13 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Strietzel

[edit]

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

He has patents. There is no information given on whether they have actually been exploited. If they have, then he might be notable, even though the article is written by an extremely prolific apparently paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi User:DGG, I looked at this article and did a bunch of clean up to see what was real. I found that some of the text was unsourced or made claims not supported by the citations. So I cleaned it up and everything is tight now. What is left is an article that rests on primary sources such as college yearbook, company website and a dozen patent listings. However, there are a few secondary sources there too and one of them describes a lawsuit with big name companies over a patented feature that Strietzel invented and then sold. The source, which is an industry news site is here. The source says: "The two telecommunications patents Curry is asserting against cell providers were both invented in 2000 by Jonathan Streitzel, a tech entrepreneur in Long Beach, Calif. and co-founder of new media company BigStage.com. Strietzel’s CrunchBase profile notes he is"credited as one of the early inventors of ‘Ring-Tone’ advertising on mobile phones and was a very early inventor and thinker in cloud computing/storage of media online" Also, if this article was created by a paid editor, he should be fired as there are better sources for his BLP such as: BusinessWeek, CBS News 1, CBS News 2, Bloomberg, Forbes 1, Forbes 2. Most of these sources are passing mentions but there is also an interview and a feature article contained within them. So this person is more notable then we thought. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename Big Stage and revamp. The company he co-founded has gotten some press from Forbes, CBS Money Watch and CNET. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Cruchbase profiles and his own company's blurbs are not reliable sources about his accomplishments. The patent summaries do not refer to ringtones, but personalized advertisements. I wonder if the patents do at all, or whether that is a unjustified claim by the non-inventor suing for infringement of the patents he bought from Strietzel. There might be some point in an article about the company. If so, it should start from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- I think someone could make a case for this to squeak by as a keep but it would be a squeak as notability is somewhat questionable even with the sources I've provided. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after the editing to make "everything ... tight now" (whatever that means), there are no suitable independent reliable sources. There is a page that merely includes his name in a list, a report in a a student newspaper at a college he once attended, copies of patent filings, a page on a blog that mentions him, etc etc, but nothing that verifies notability by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:00, 7 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. I think there are substantive reliable sources to establish notability. Please continue to improve the article by adding in those sources. JodyB_talk 14:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astropy

[edit]

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

Subject shows little notability, has no sources or references except the official site. Possibly WP:SPAM. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The paper describing the package has only been out since July, but already has citation by a paper in a peer reviewed journal and citations in four more submitted papers. WP:NSOFT, which is an essay, indicates that notable software "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", and this software seems to meet that requirement. It might be a tiny bit on the premature side for a wiki article, but I think the citations are adequate evidence of notability . Sailsbystars (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep At least one other of the papers listed above has been accepted to a peer-reviewed journal. The growing emphasis of open-source software in astronomy, particularly Python, speaks to this package's notability. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a relatively new package, but one that has already caught on and seems likely to be of fundamental importance to Astronomers. It attempts to unite development effort around a single package, thus reducing wasted duplication of effort. So far that effort appears to be succeeding very well. AstroPy also includes at least two mature and very widely used packages: PyFITS and PyWCS. I also think it is useful to have a wikipedia entry for AstroPy. Please give it a chance.R3owen (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The use of astropy for research in astrophysics is becoming increasingly common as other people have already mentioned. Despite the package still being relatively new, it starts having packages in various linux distributions. Med (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Wikipedia is a useful resource when researching software to use for a particular project. Specifically Astropy, being the only major framework for Python in astronomy (Python is a rapidly growing language in astronomy), should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Despite it's infant status (having been founded only two years ago) it already has a large amount of contributors (65 compare to numpy's ~120) and even more users negating the statement of low notability.

keep astropy is a very useful new package, that is very quickly gaining users in the professional astronomy community.

keep A new software package used by the world's relatively few professional astronomers isn't ever going to be on the front page. But for those who do need to know about it (eg students new to the field), a Wikipedia article is an important reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbarmby (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick news and books search showed nothing about the software program itself, and a search of Google in general only really turned up documentation from their website. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Also, sock puppetry going on above here? Taking this to WP:SPI - Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking post. Will explain further down. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search on pyfits instead. That package is being relocated into astropy, and it will stop being made available in the next year as a standalone package. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pypedia (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep pyfits, just for info, is an essential software component so far maintained by NASAs Space Telescope Science Institute. And the website hosts an active mailing list with over 600 subscribers from professional astronomical research institutions, so good luck with the WP:SPI!BDwinds (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those Wiki maintainers interested, you may follow the recent topic creation thread on the above user-list http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/astropy/2013-November/thread.html Also please Google properly and you will see 1,180 scientific PDFs referencing Astropy https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=astropy&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=. The Hubble Space Telescope team sponsors this project's events as well http://www.stsci.edu/institute/conference/astropy/participantList — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This Wikipedia page has been discussed in an astropy-related listserv, partly explaining the many editors contributing to it. There is no sockpuppetry going on here. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at the very least for the time being). This package is widely used in peer-reviewed astronomy papers (and has been since well before the main Astronomy & Astrophysics publication was published, so citations don't yet clearly cite that). Given that the article is new, it at least has enough possibility for development into an article which establishes notability through third-party sources (which I think are currently lacking). I strongly prefer to let the editors work on this article for at least a few days before considering deleting it. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested... wiki actually has a lot of articles on astronomical software with similar sourcing to this one. I know, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF. But can software be notable when the user base is only maybe 1000 people? I know I !voted keep above, but the delete voters have a point in that it wouldn't pass the usual interpretation of needs gnews sources. Do science papers count? In that case there are as I said in my keep rationale, 2 published+3 submitted sources. But I don't know if there's any precedent for if science papers can establish notability like that. Anyway, a list of more astronomical software articles is below along with notes on sourcing. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

other astro software we have articles on
Astronomical_Image_Processing_System - Article in linux journal, otherwise self sourcing AIPS++ - ASP conference papers with [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1993ASPC...52..156C&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST 7 citations FITS - Pretty good sources, the main published paper has 158 citations SPICE - All self-cites, but NASA=self in this case IRAF - no reliable sources whatsoever

other astro software we have articles on

Astronomical_Image_Processing_System - Article in linux journal, otherwise self sourcing
AIPS++ - ASP conference papers with [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1993ASPC...52..156C&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST 7 citations
FITS - Pretty good sources, the main published paper has 158 citations
SPICE - All self-cites, but NASA=self in this case
IRAF - no reliable sources whatsoever

Comment: The number of accounts that popped back to life (or were created the day of the AFD) to vote in this AFD shows a sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry campaign going on. I just notified another "suddenly alive" account for spamming Astropy (fixed for format and Astropy left pending AFD). Re: astropy-related listserv, that's still Meatpuppetry. As to AFD, no comment at this time. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually unfortunate that all these new accounts have showed up because the AfD debate has some rather interesting issues for which I don't think there are obvious answers, but that debate has been drowned out by all the non-policy based arguments from new accounts which will just wind up being discounted by the closing admin.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Python package widely used in astronomy. As Med noted, widely distributed in many linux distribution, as well as pure python package managers. Meodudlye (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep AstroPy is included in the Python(x,y) distribution. peterl (talk)

Alex raises an interesting point — can something be notable by WPs standards that is of high relevance to just one community, if that community is small in absolute numbers (even though, I'd like to say, quite visible to a wider public)? We certainly cannot decide on that internally. But I'd like to set some numbers straight: more than 600 subscribed to the list probably covers mainly ″early adopters″, users interested in development and the contributors themselves; there are, I think, about 50,000 - 100,000 professional astronomers worldwide, and any of them using Python (which is still rapidly gaining popularity) will have to use astropy sooner or later if they want to access the de facto astronomical file standard FITS. You could probably add to that a similar number of students each year, who will certainly be better off getting a Python-based training than working in a specialised language like IRAF or MIDAS. BDwinds (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FoBM, if you'd study the list thread you might realise that there was first a call for volunteers to document the project on Wikipedia, and once someone took the burden of setting up the initial page (thanks again rjsdotorg!), others joined in with their contributions as well. Even some who just joined Wikipedia to work on this (which includes myself). And, yes, the rest of the community was encouraged to contribute more after the AFD came up, since I think we were frankly taken by surprise that 10 min after one starts work on a new page someone comes by and requests to delete it. But this seems nonetheless like a perfectly reasonable working mode to me. Also, input on the various distributions and projects often can only come from those who are directly involved at this point. I don't know if this now qualifies as Meatpuppetry BDwinds (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Time stamps and history on this page and other pages exactly match the WP:PUPPET nutshell. We are not talking about accounts created to work on an article, there are accounts coming back to life or created after the start of AFD. We can ASSUME its just new users from the listserv but Wikipedidia consensus treats it all the same per WP:MEAT, such votes are "disregarded or given significantly less weigh". Probably doesn't make a difference since it looks 50/50 per the remaining votes. The article itself needs a cleanup to match Wikipedia format. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not find a defined criterion for what timeframe exactly one should assume WP:PUPPET, however already pointed out that it was technically impossible for anyone else to start work on the article before the AFD. People seem prone to spotting ducks just about everywhere; but I suggest as well to concentrate on improving the content and format of the actual article and then see if it matches Wikipedia standards. BDwinds (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Re BDwinds, above, it is of high relevance to just one community, but it is now integral to science data often shown in print and books in the form of Hubble images, and those from other instruments, often the largest in the world. Hubble_Space_Telescope has such images in its own article. As for conspiratorial meatpuppetry, articles such as Python itself, for instance, cannot possibly be written by completely disinterested parties; any knowledge of the domain worth communicating implies use. I (a hobbyist astronomer, but Python professional) created the page as I felt it had as much notability as Scipy, particularly in that it is a new collaboration managed by some of the most noted scientists in the field. Criticisms of the article's actual content are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FITS#Using FITS files. First of all, a WP:TROUT goes to the nominator for bringing to AfD an article only 12 minutes old and thus WP:BITEing a relatively new editor. Much better would have been to place a notability or promotional tag on the article and best would have been to contact the editor and discuss your concerns. Regarding the article, AstroPy is fairly new, having been released to the public in July 2013. There seems to be a lot of momentum behind it [1] and it will no doubt become notable in time. But for now, there are few publications that mention it. There are primary publications that are reliable sources, such as Astronomy & Astrophysics article, and there are secondary publications that use AstroPy, but don't go in depth about AstroPy itself. Unfortunately, I could not find multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. However, basic facts about AstroPy are verifiable in reliable sources and per WP:PRESERVE, we should strive to preserve verifiable information. As AstroPy has or will become the canonical python FITS implementation, I suggest merging a short summary to the FITS article section FITS#Using FITS files, where the package is already mentioned. There is no prejudice to recreation when multiple independent reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for bringing in the reminder of WP:CIVIL!

Re: Merge with FITS I should clarify that the file interface is only one sub-package of a single library of AstroPy; while we have probably focussed on this element, since it is among the most mature and has the strongest institutional backing, the functionality of AstroPy goes far beyond just loading data. IMO merging it under FITS#Using FITS files would be paramount to merging Lightroom, ImageMagick or even Photoshop into the corresponding section on RAW files. While it may be true that most of the other sections have not reached the same level of maturity and documentation yet, filing it under FITS now and splitting it off again later would appear to be rather confusing and counter-productive BDwinds (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) comment: Though astropy includes FITS reading packages, it includes many other packages as well, so confining it to FITS is inappropriate. I think the combination of the A&A refereed paper, which goes into great depth, the Space Telescope package (a third party source) using it, and the .Astronomy conference proceeding (mostly written by third parties, though the lead developer of astropy is a coauthor well down the author list) mentioning the prominence of astropy are sufficient to establish notability. Following your logic through, can we at least put this AfD on hold for a while and focus on improving the article to address there concerns in the more appropriate, less-newcomer-threatening environment of Talk:Astropy? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that FITS#Using FITS files is not an ideal target for a merge, as FITS capabilites are only a subset of AstroPy, but it is the best target I could find. I'm flexible on target if you all have other suggestions. AfD discussions run for at least seven days, so you all still have some time to develop the article and find independent reliable sources (per WP:RS) that we may have missed. The A&A article is peer-reviewed and relaible, but not independent. The conference proceedings are mostly independent, but are they reliable, that is, are they peer-reviewed? If so, these could be useful toward demonstrating notability. Userfying the article, as suggested by Red Phoenix below, would be a good option for developing the article at your own pace without the threat of deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a good other place to put the content, I don't see what the cost is to keeping it where it most obviously belongs, at astropy. I normally consider unrefereed papers on the arxiv as intermediate in reliability between a peer-reviewed, published source and a self-published source. However, since facts aren't in dispute here (and facts are fully supported by the peer-reviewed paper, which is fully reliable -- just not third party), I'd consider the arxiv source mostly acceptable (if not sufficient on its own) for establishing notability, the one drawback being the developer who is down the author list on the proceedings. OTHERSTUFF aside, the standard this article is being held to is much higher than much of the software in Category:Astronomy software. eg AIPS++, IRAF, KStars, and SOFA all lack third party refs. Also, astropy seems to me to clearly meet criterion 1 for inclusion of the WP:NSOFT essay, which doesn't list the third party requirement of WP:GNG. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FITS#Using FITS files per Mark viking. Seems the best. Lack of multiple RS and a large part of the article being a linkfarm makes it poor encyclopedic content. Maybe some day. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I've stricken my delete above in light of some facts that have risen. I was rather surprised, but also relieved, to find out this wasn't a WP:SPI issue despite the signs. My decision to revoke my opinion on deletion comes from the gigantic dedication to this subject that it seems has become apparent. It does seem to have been a mistake to have this brought to AFD so soon, although I do recommend that this be more further developed before being posted to the mainspace. I could not find anything to assert notability, but if such a great number of editors are convinced, what I might recommend is that a user working on this subject, such as Sailsbystars (talk · contribs), adopts it into a sandbox page in userspace and fleshes it out with reliable sources and the necessary notability establishments, then have it reviewed by an experienced editor before having it posted into the userspace. I think this is a good compromise solution that both helps the new users and committed team behind this article to build it, and allows the mainspace to continue maintaining its quality standards (note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that there is little standard for quality in our articles; but only that Wikipedia has over 4.2 million articles and not all of them have been weeded through and improved or evaluated yet... not even close, as a matter of fact.) My apologies as well to Sailsbystars for the huge misunderstanding at WP:SPI - there's a reason they call it "reasonable suspicion", but every now and then reasonable suspicion is not truth, and this was one of those cases. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support userfy (others, see WP:USERFY for more details) if the editors wanted this option. I concur that what we have here is a group of editors enthusiastic about AstroPy and there was and is no intent to game the AfD system. --Mark viking (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries Red Phoenix, no hard feelings here. I've been around for long enough that I've seen plenty of AfD shenanigans (see this for my favorite), so I understand where you were coming from. I also would support userfication and would offer my userspace as a suitable home for the page. Perhaps it should go through AfC in a few months if there is more evidence for notability at that point? And after it's been cleaned up a bit as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, let me return you one in response here (which did lead to an SPI, and all confirmed as socks). AFC wouldn't be a bad process to follow here with userfication, but as long as there's a good establishment of notability, I'd be fine with placing it back in userspace once notability is established. It also seems so new that WP:CRYSTAL may have some implications here, but that doesn't mean it can't be sandboxed and worked on until it's ready and has notability. That's my take on it, at least. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, add, another alternate option is redirect to List of Python software with a one sentence blurb there w/source including a wikilink to the FITS article. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arXiv papers used as sources all seem to be legitimate conference papers; I think that satsfies WP:RS and WP:N. -- 101.119.14.34 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are mostly from proceedings that appeared in print or actual refereed journals. Thanks Mark viking and Red Phoenix for stepping forward to finally turn this into a productive discussion. Merging into FITS#Using FITS files would mean deleting about 90% of the article, since we certainly cannot have all that non FITS-related content in there. So I would also prefer userfy over that. And we may really need some guidance as to what exactly is desirable for a WP article; while some sections certainly are still lacking content, I am a bit at a loss right now as to which direction to go. On the one hand there is the purported lack of WP:RS, on the other complaints about this turning into a "link farm". WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an acceptable guideline, but without clearer templates for this case, what should we look for if NOT other articles on similar topics? BDwinds (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It seems evident in retrospect that I should have created this in sandbox or user space, and given it a week or two before posting to the main wiki. BDwinds "some sections certainly are still lacking content" indicates that users (or non-users, in some manner) still need to provide content, but what, in the software realm, is most important for encyclopaedic content? The initial article was patterned after Numpy. I would much rather spend spare my moments at lunch improving the article than typing here, if I had a clearer direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the core of most deletion discussions is this: What makes the subject notable? In other words, why is it worth talking about? There's a reason we don't do pages for every project ever known to exist, despite the common belief that we do. Notability is established through reliable sources, and in more than simply a passing mention of a subject. Media coverage from sources known for fact-checking are generally reliable sources, such as books from established authors and experts, scholarly works, news stories, and certain websites, too. Just because there's something on the internet about it does not mean it is a reliable source. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also much rather spend the time working on the actual content; it seemed to me e.g. that paragraphs of coherent text might be regarded better encyclopaedic content than lists of features with or without links. But this is certainly not an insight you could get from studying any of the examples of existing pages for comparable software projects. It's either terse feature description or tutorials/documentation, which is also expressly not what is wanted on Wikipedia. I can't help but sharing Alex's impression that this page is now held to a far higher standard of WP:N than any other either in Category:Astronomy software, or of comparable ones in numerical analysis, if 7 scholarly papers + 4-5 established authors or institutions is still considered insufficient (including examples outside astronomy, e.g. PAW, ROOT, Biopython).BDwinds (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it's so much that as it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply put, there just aren't enough editors on Wikipedia to go through and weed out every category and help ensure encyclopedic value by improving notable topics and demonstrating notability while flushing out the unnotable ones. I happen to know of one editor in particular who does that with fictional characters and settings, but not many editors do that, and it's a shame that there aren't more devoted editors like there appear to be for this one subject. I'll admit this one isn't really along my lines—you'll often see me working on articles about video games and consoles. Many interested editors have come and gone, leaving what we have now. In any regard, here would be my question in response: how much coverage about Astropy itself is in those sources? Remember, a passing mention isn't enough to be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. I'm just trying to help you guys out here, which is why I recommended the userfication, and I'm trying to help show a few of the principles of Wikipedia and how to build quality, encyclopedic content. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question for astro-scientists in general, regarding notability: is the Astropy collaboration an unprecedented effort in the field of astronomy? Certainly large groups have worked on Keck or Hubble as large systems, but has there ever been 90+ astronomers holding regular meetings designing open tools? My impression as a 13 year Pythonista is that few packages in any language have garnered such involvement.Rjsdotorg (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any, but that certainly doesn't meant they don't exist. The major packages I'm most familiar with are either commercial (IDL, my normal tool of choice, although I'm increasingly replacing it with python) or developed by observatories (IRAF, CASA, miriad, etc). All of these packages have many sub-packages developed by astronomers, often as part of collaborations of varying degrees of formality. My impression is that astropy is one of the largest collaborations without an organisational lead. I don't have a reference to back that up, though. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:44, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hoover (entrepreneur)

[edit]

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

Only conceivable notability is as the lead investor of Grammarly, which I do consider to be notable. (But see the lede of this article for a promotional sentence about him, found also in the present article). Apparently the only other thing of even marginal significance that the apparently promotional ed. could find is being semi- finalist for an award DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grammarly. I agree that he seems to be of questionable notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He certainly isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, but why merge to Grammarly? At the most, it might be justifiable to mention there that he is the CEO of the company that sells Grammarly, but there is no reason to see him as notable enough to be given substantial coverage in an article about a product sold by the company is connected to. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - About 3 or 4 of my first Google News searches provided absolutely nothing and my subsequent searches provided nothing useful either here (bizjournals.com, minor mentions including the General Catalyst Partners investment). I also found some minor mentions in a The Economist article. I also found another minor mention for the GSP partnership here and an even more minor mention here. Basically, he's best known as the CEO and there's not much for a separate article. No prejudice towards a future article if the time comes and he's independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 10 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: unambiguous spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VOWS Bridal Outlet

[edit]

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

Store whose only apparent notability is as the setting for the show in article just listed at aafd; the two were apparently written to support each other. I list them separately because it is possible that the program is notable, but I don't think there's much chance that the store is. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into I Found The Gown. The show is basically just a promotion for the store. Might as well combine them into one article. The show seems to have more notability than the store. I noted coverage from local sources, but there really isn't any non-local coverage. Deletion is also acceptable, but I think a redirect might be helpful, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. Non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 02:54, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kelly (author)

[edit]

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

Promotional article abou self-published author ; very minor notability if any. One of the many articles from an apparently admitted paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to really say whether she's notable or not, as there isn't really a lot to go on, and her name is kind of generic. However, she does not seem to be the subject of the majority of "Mary Kelly" hits that I saw on Google News. Trying to narrow it down with "mensa", "commander", "author", etc doesn't seem to help much in establishing notability. I'm open to changing my vote if someone else can pull up some relevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One method is book titles, since book reviews is how an author passes notability. I can't find anything, lots of press releases. Not a notable author. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. - tucoxn\^talk 02:50, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HireJungle

[edit]

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

promotional article for company with at best very borderline notability, written by prolific apparently admitted paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impressive for a new UK-based firm to have received such attention from the NY Times etc. Unfortunately they haven't: these "references" don't mention this firm. That leaves the several Blog entries. And looking elsewhere, I am just finding a couple of re-heated June press releases from the firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, the NYTimes articles don't mention this company (if it had, that would've been some good coverage) and the blogs are surely not enough for a good article. Start up article for a start up company. Google News searches didn't provide anything and searches at local newspapers City AM, Evening Standard and Metro also provided nothing. No prejudice towards a future article when the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. - tucoxn\^talk 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like an ADVERT for a NN company or website. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Angel Family Films

[edit]

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

article about non-notable production company, with no notable films, there have been other promotional articles from this apparently admitted paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets almost no Google hits at all. That's a very bad sign when it comes to notability. It looks like nobody has ever heard of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable company. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:01, 6 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester united soccer schools mumbai

[edit]

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

Non-notable local branch of a likely notable global organization. Manchester United has franchised a global string of soccer schools to train youth players around the world. This organization, based on its scope and tie-in to the ManU team, is likely notable, and probably merits an article. However, the present article, concentrating on one branch of this global franchise, does not merit inclusion. (Although smaller in scope, this would be somewhat akin to creating an article about my corner McDonald's restaurant.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WikiDan..I considered nominating it but because it had the word school in it I was hesitant..I do not believe it meets inclusion guidelines as a stand alone and at most a redirect could be used until/unless it can be shown that this is a notable branch. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have suggested a redirect if the main article on the Manchester United Soccer Schools existed. Surprisingly, it doesn't, nor is the organization even mentioned on the Manchester United F.C. page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete odd combination of an advertisement and downright weird trivia ("washroom/changing room facilities are a little unhygienic"). Regardless, the subject (a local franchise of a business chain) is not notable, and even if it were it would need a 100% rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnotable soccer school based in India. Fails WP:GNG. Its association with Manchester United can also be put into doubt as the only thing resembling Manchester United are the logos on literally everything. Other than that it is a simple soccer school that just happened to gain some fame due to being attatched to a famous club. No different to say the Arsenal Soccer Schools in Colorado for example. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - no indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 5 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Lutze

[edit]

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

Promotional article for professional speaker, with possible notability from her books, and definite possibility if she did in fact invent the current usage of the word "findability. If there is notability here, it would be best shown by starting over, omitting the list of where she gave speeches, her beauty makeover, and similar material. The article was written by an apparently admitted paid editor DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to KEEP. Heather Lutze is widely credited with the word "findability." See this article: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-wainger/the-shtickiness-factor_b_3471675.html and the Wikipedia page on Findability. Additionally, she is the author of the book: "The Findability Formula: The Easy, Non-Technical Approach to Search Engine Marketing" --TriJenn (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made per DGG suggestions. Disclosure: Heather Lutze is a friend and client. --TriJenn (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same editor who wrote this article added the material on her to our page on "findability" a few weeks ago. at this edit . The only source for it is the Huffington Post article cited here also, whose author is Liz Wainge, President, Wainger Group Communication, saying there "In my world of communications consulting, Heather Lutze coined the word "findability" to help clients understand the benefits of Internet search engine optimization. The shtickiness of findability led to a business and brand that in turn fostered a highly successful speaking career and book publishing enterprise." Used in this way, it sounds like promotion for a friend. Before that, the long-standing article, only mentioned verified other uses by other people, including earlier uses. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. - tucoxn\^talk 02:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:00, 8 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Hotline

[edit]

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

no apparent notability; there have been other promotional articles from this admitted paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - The company has certainly received alot of coverage especially from the Toronto Star with articles and "link suggestions" on its website going as far as 1989 (from about page 3 to 5, alot of Toronto Star suggestions nonetheless). This is what I found after my search at Google News, alot of good coverage from US and Canadian press mostly dealing with their surveys and polls. Google Books even found some links as well (probably not anything I would use in an encyclopedia article though). Even if this article hadn't been pay-for-make, there probably wouldn't be anything good. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. - tucoxn\^talk 02:56, 6 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 merge to List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Office of National Emergency

[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. Not independently notable. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been viewed over 2,000 in the last 90 days. I would not be at all surprised if some readers came to this title looking for an actual agency by this name. bd2412 T 19:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a quick GNews search indicates that's probably the case. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:27, 9 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro-Base

[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. Does not receive significant coverage by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 5 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn archer

[edit]

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

Delete, I believe at this point the artists fails GNG[[2]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indications of notability. The upcoming appearance at the Winter Whites Gala appears to be her sole claim to fame, but event that fact cannot be reliably verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, I was considering speedy deletion as a promotional article, but since this AfD is here we may as well see if anyone else has anything to say about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 4 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talon G. Ackerman

[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. WP:TOOSOON applies. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - When searching at Google News, I was surprised to see how much news coverage he's actually received, it seems particularly in theatre. According to his resume, he's had several Utah performances and I've found some Utah theatre productions with a "Talon G. Ackerman" so I'm sure it's him with that not-so-common name. At first, I thought there may've actually been an article here with this much coverage but now I realize some of it is for the same productions so it would simply be piling on references for a few productions. He definitely seems to be getting some good work and has potential but there's probably not much for now. A Young Artist Award is a decent accomplishment for a young actor but it's probably still not enough. This reminds me of an article I help improved, Emma Degerstedt, but I think even she had a little more substance (two YAAs and a few more productions). If other users think there's an article, I'm free to reconsider. If not, no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 6 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) 16:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers 2009–10

[edit]

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

Unneeded dab page. No such pages for any other sports/leagues. Also wrong logic. 2009-10 season does not include summer 2010 events, for example. Redirect to winter transfers only was reverted. NickSt (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plausible search term, but it is an ambiguous search term, and that's why we need a dab-page: The 2009–10 season includes the pre-season transfer window and the mid-season transfer window and arguable also the transfer window after the season ended. It was me who reverted the redirection of this title to List of English football transfers winter 2009–10, because there are two transfer windows during the 2009–10 season. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly valid set index. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mentoz86. Giant Snowman 13:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plausible search term that requires disambiguation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mentoz86. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:25, 6 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marivel Taruc

[edit]

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

yet another CV without notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is just a bio copied from the cbc website about their employee, the only reference is the cbc link where every reporter they have is referenced. That article doesn't even try and state any notability. WP:CSD#A7 TomKoenig (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough the link went dead at cbc and now the only source is also gone... TomKoenig (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Journalists have a very difficult time passing WP:GNG, they usually make it by writing a book that is reviewed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:32, 10 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Shock festival

[edit]

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

This article has little to no signs of notability. While a quick search on google may seem to show news reports and adequete notability about the topic, those actually represent a different topic. A search including the word "suny" narrows down the results and show that there is little if not none news reports about the topic - reports are mostly just blogs. There is also only one source. Darylgolden^(talk) 09:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find sources to fix the inaccuracies in this article but have so far found none that are usable. As much as the festival is of personal importance to me, I'd rather no article exist on it than the current white washed one. I'm in favor of deletion Edmundlava (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Fails GNG. Like those above I searched and failed to find anything but social media and accounts of certain performances that happened to take place at this festival. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:36, 10 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 merge to Babbar Khalsa International. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of actions by Babbar Khalsa

[edit]

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

I find this article very awkward. The article does not pass WP:Lists guidelines. Most of the sections are totally unreferenced. I feel article should be deleted it is un-required and non-expandable FORK of Babbar Khalsa article. We don't have similar lists of declared terrorist organization for example - List of actions by Al-Qaeda, List of actions by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, etc. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not really appropriate for a separate article , as the list is short enough to be merged into the main article -- which is where anyone would look for the information. given the topic, it was not unreasonable to bring it here for an enforceable decision. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am okay with merge suggestion given by DGG. Any referenced info which if already not in Babbar Khalsa article could be merged into it as I also felt it was unnecessary Fork of main article. Further, I find the organization is almost inactive and there are no major news after 1995. Jethwarp (talk) 03:44, 5 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andria D’Souza

[edit]

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

Non notable actor with no reliable references to back up any claims. Article appears to bypass AfC upon rejection. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG & BIO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, appears to be only one RS, if that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 8 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Nelson

[edit]

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

another busy resume with lots of namedropping but no notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:31, 6 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Navarro

[edit]

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

busy resume, but nothing close to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG & BIO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:36, 6 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Manning Cup Football Competition

[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Article does not fulfill WP:NSEASONS as this does not refer to a top professional league, nor even anational competition. Additionally contravenes WP:NOT#STATS due to lack of significant sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a secondary school level tournament. Not notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – under the same criteria as this article from a different season, recently deleted at AfD. C 679 16:00, 11 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. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2012)

[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Article does not fulfill WP:NSEASONS as this does not refer to a top professional league, nor even anational competition. Additionally contravenes WP:NOT#STATS due to lack of significant sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this nearly identical AfD closed yesterday. C 679 12:26, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathodysmorphia

[edit]

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

The only sources anywhere for this newly coined term are in a primary source paper published by the author of the term, SJBrooks User:DrSamanthaBrooks who created the article-- not an independent source-- and one other primary source that mentions the word. DrSamanthaBrooks acknowledges on article talk there are no other sources and appeals for the article to be kept so her students can read it about it to plan their experiments, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~, notability not met. Only one independent source anywhere uses the word, and no WP:MEDRS-compliant source does. The original paper published by the author of this article is not an independent source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandy Georgia, can this article be reinstated when there are more references about this concept (independently of mine?) Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.153.205 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - okay, first, SandyGeorgia you nominated the article for deletion for your support for deleting the article is assumed. There's no need to also !vote. Samantha, you are free to leave Sandy a note on her talk page but this is a discussion open to the whole Wikipedia editing community so you'll find people other than Sandy will also contribute here. On the article itself - the subject is pure original research and we would need a lot more for this to be considered notable. Until then, it fails WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTBLOG if the want to keep it here is based on a desire to disseminate information to students. Wikipedia doesn't exist for use as a web-hosting service for new ideas or things someone invented one day. We're a long, long, long way from reliable coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart111 11:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111:, I don't often come this way, so would you mind popping over to my talk page with further info and let me know where I can find the instruction you reference (that it is assumed that my "vote" is delete)? What I find in the instructions is that possible outcomes at AFD include Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article, so I thought I had to specify where I stood. I don't think we have a merge or redirect target, and I don't know if we can transwiki to Wiktionary, as all we have at this point is a definition from one non-independent source, and I don't know the policies at Wiktionary. So I opined "Delete". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to! Stalwart111 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per discussion at Talk:Pathodysmorphia, this is new academic research reported in one primary and one secondary publication. This seems like a fairly clear case of 'too soon' (notwithstanding WP:Too soon's focus on pop culture topics). This may well become a notable concept in psychiatry and related fields, but until that time it belongs in the professional literature, not on Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 5 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 merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taranee Cook

[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion of real world notability, so a Speedy Delete may be appropriate. LK (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. I agree that notability is not established here; seems a reasonable redirect, however. Merge where appropriately sourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 4 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 List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Hale

[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion of real world notability, so a Speedy Delete may be appropriate. LK (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 4 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 List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. v/r - T P 02:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb (W.I.T.C.H.)

[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion of real world notability, so a Speedy Delete may be appropriate. LK (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Does not receive significant coverage by independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 4 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 List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. v/r - T P 02:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.H.Y.K.N.

[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion of real world notability, so a Speedy Delete may be appropriate. LK (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters or delete. All of these characters are already listed in the main List of... article, and having them duplicated here doesn't really serve any purpose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 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 W.I.T.C.H.. v/r - T P 02:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kandrakar

[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion of real world notability, so a Speedy Delete may be appropriate. LK (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to W.I.T.C.H. or delete. Consists entirely of unreferenced plot details. Could be merged into the main article, but I don't really see much point. It's better suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 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 merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Lin

[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. See also AfD's of the other W.I.T.C.H. chracters. LK (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 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. The previous AfD was in 2005 and no substantial was presented in either the previous AfD or this AfD that this is notable according to the notability guidelines. There is a consensus here to delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Internet Filter

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero hits in Google News Archive.

Freeware unmaintained since 2006. Even though in 2008, as the article claims, it may have still stood as a "reliable software protection package", it has now been unmaintained for seven years.

The previous AfD closed as "no consensus".

Please delete the article this time: the software has faded away into the darkness, having failed to gain sufficient significance in the annals of computing history.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one mention, in New Straits Times, 2005 (via Highbeam, subscription reqd), but that merely says that the product "seems to work quite well" which is far short of in-depth coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many, many forum posts from people trying to figure out how to uninstall it, but nothing usable. It doesn't look like it was significant when it was new, and it sure doesn't look like that's going to change with time. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 5 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. v/r - T P 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Ji'en (Liao Dynasty eunuch)

[edit]

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

This is a fork of Empress Xiao Yanyan, created by a sockpuppet (see user:Khan zor and user:Jehoys) obsessed with the apparent mass castration conducted by Empress Xiao Yanyan. The article doesn't focus on Wang Ji'en at all, so much as that it provides another vehicle for this person to talk about the mass castration. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced of the topic's notability. The information about the topic is unverifiable or cited to iffy sites, seemingly derived from a sparse mention in a primary source. The secondary cited things isn't about the topic. --Cold Season (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with analysis by Cold Season (talk · contribs), above, particularly with regard to the secondary sources, or lack thereof. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Cirt, WP:SOAP, and WP:OR. This is almost entirely a cut and paste of an original source, complete with pinyan, and very little dressing. We are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 12 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. v/r - T P 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Triangle, Los Angeles

[edit]

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

No sources except mirrors of the WP article. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=platinum+triangle&x=63&y=8&type=current&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=0&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1985&tomonth=10&today=19&toyear=2013&By=&Title=&at_curr=ALL&Sect=ALL. This appellation is heard or seen nowhere else except in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just varying the search criteria slightly - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - seems to show a lot of sources. The term certainly seems to be colloquial rather than official, but there seem to be sources going back at least twenty years. PWilkinson (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte An examination of these works will find that they quoted from or stemmed from the Wikipedia article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Many of the books and news articles found date from before the creation of the Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind word. I did not find that to be the case, but I am glad you double-checked for us. If you are so set against the deletion, I would not insist on it, although others might. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just look at the book and news sources that PWilkinson linked and explain why you think that those with publication dates before 2007 "quoted from or stemmed from the Wikipedia article" rather than just say that you did not find that any of them date from before the Wikipedia article. I'm not "so set against the deletion" but based my comment on the evidence, which you have totally misrepresented. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 21 October 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, BusterD (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found multiple news sources, some from reliable national sources like USA Today, that support the article's definition of a wealthy neighborhood centered around Beverly Hills. [3] [4] [5] There is also a book about the neighborhood called Unreal Estate.[6] BTW GeorgeLouis, it's behind a paywall, but this article from the Los Angeles Times included the sentence "Brokers say the sheik is already scouting the so-called "Platinum Triangle" of Beverly Hills, Holmby Hills and Bel-Air" - in 1989! I think that disproves your "based on Wikipedia" theory. If the article is kept I will undertake to improve the references. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MelanieN. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:26, 10 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. --BDD (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwood Institute

[edit]

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

The article fails notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, and reliable sources WP:RS Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching is complicated because there evidently is another Heartwood Institute, based in Pittsburgh, dedicated to ethics education. (e.g. [7]) This article is about a massage school in Garberville, California, and while that may at first blush sound likely to be non-notable, focused searches for things like <"Heartwood Institute" massage> or <"Heartwood Institute" Garberville> actually turn up results in GBooks and GNews indicating that the school may have some notability within the massage world. A lot of those results are paywalled, but here's a recent local newspaper writeup about the place: [8]. Not an overwhelming case for notability but seems to be worth further investigation, at least. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "new" Heartwood (the one in the newspaper article) is just starting. It might someday become notable if it actually gets off the ground, but the "old" Heartwood that had massage classes, yoga and such is gone. I too found listings in books and scholar, but they were events listings or mentions in travelogue or travel books. I don't think that one story in the Garberville paper is really evidence of notability. That paper needs local content and has been known to write about mating slugs, fallen trees and raccoons in the trashbin; no dizz on any of the above, but they're not particularly notable either. I came to see the Heartwood page because someone had inserted it in "educational institutions in Humboldt County" which it certainly is not - in either metamorphosis - on the same page as Humboldt State University, local charter schools or the public school districts. In the old version it was a pay-per-class conference center, and the new version so far has only had a couple of events. I still don't think it is notable. I really looked for information on the old hippy-style place, and there really wasn't any. Also, not a single page in the project links to it, which suggests additional unimportance; even the Garberville page has no link to it or the former owners. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this "institute". Unreferenced since 2005. Shame on us for letting it stay that long, and thanks to Ellin Beltz for finally catching it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hoped to improve this article but was unable to find any reliable information about it, so I'm proposing it for deletion because the subject is fails notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, and reliable sources WP:RS

A.) I read and understood the guidelines for deletion.

B.) The following checks were done

1.) Article does not meet speedy deletion criteria.

2.) Notability concerns lead to a search for reliable sources:

a.) One current reference is to a private website and the other is to the webpage of the place itself.

b.) I was unable to find objective evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

c.) I searched Google and Yahoo for news articles but did not find any news or journal articles about the place other than a few calendar event listings.

d.) I searched Google Books and found the same thing that I found on Google Scholar, one e-book [9] but after reading a few pages, I don't think this personal travelogue is a reliable secondary source.

3.) I checked the article's short history and do not see any evidence of vandalism.

4.) The article's talk page is blank except for project templates.

5.) Checking "What links here" returns the result of a disambiguation page which says "Heartwood Institute, a community in California, United States", a redirect from "The Heartwood Institute", and one passing reference on Shiva Ayyadurai to a person who is not listed on the Heartwood Institute page. Nothing links to the talk page.

6.) No luck on interlanguage links either.

C.) I don't think this article could be improved because I can't find any more information about the place. The article has had several years and has not grown.

D.) The source search is described in 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d. above

I looked at the talk page of the article's creator and they haven't been active for years, so I am unable to ask them for help finding more information. I do not think there is any other article into which this page could be merged. The "local writeup" mentioned above is from a local newspaper and it is about the new owners of the former Heartwood property who are starting up something completely new. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a rescue has been attempted but failed. There is no evidence this meets notability generally or as a corporate entity. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 6 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. The strength of Green Cardamom's argument is clear. Editors misunderstand several facts about the English Wikipedia and one of them is that sources much be verifiable. Verifiable does not mean sources have to be in English. This appears to be a case of cultural bias. I do not see a consensus to delete this article based on Wikipedia policies. v/r - T P 21:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrollah Hekmat

[edit]

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

This Person is not notable, i did a research on Google.com no notable source came up. P.s: All of the selected publications looks like a hoax, google some of them and you wont find even a single one. Foodie (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it is a hoax, there are a few hits, but seems to clearly fail WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources or cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR and GNG. Appears to be a noted Philosopher working in Farsi in Iran. Sources in Farsi include (note: "Hekmat" translates as "Wisdom"): [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Also nominated for an award of some kind [17][18]. These links are not exhaustive there are pages of Google hits for the Farsi name نصرالله حکمت -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is the case, Can you please Update this article to make it look better and sync with whatever work he has done. Definitely we want to keep encyclopaedic articles on Wikipedia. For this case i am still not not sure if this article can pass GNG. --Foodie (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable! When you search "Dr Nasrollah Hekmat" on google you can finde many sources about an Iranian philosopher that named Nasrolah Hekmat! He is full professor in one of the most prestigious universities in Iran (please search shahid beheshti university in wikipedia or google) I also tag some links about Nasrollah Hekmat. I think if you search Dr Nasrollah Hekmat you can finde some imformations.

http://iqna.ir/en/news_detail.php?ProdID=79974 http://www.sid.ir/en/ViewPaper.asp?ID=275759&vDate=SPRING-SUMMER%202012&vEnd=70&vJournal=JOURNAL+OF+ONTOLOGICAL+RESEARCHES&vNo=1&vStart=57&vVolume=1&vWriter=HEKMAT%20NASROLLAH http://oldenweb.sbu.ac.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.141.124 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — 109.162.141.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat shows no published books, WoS no published papers, so it is unclear what the publications listed in the article actually are. The only thing I can find by the subject is a paper (not in the article's publication list) entitled The theory of imitating God in Ibn Arabi's Epistemology in the Journal of Ontological Researches. The publisher is "Shaid Rajaee Teacher Training University". The journal was started last year and seems to be absent from the mainstream indexes. The other problem is that there is no assertion of notability in the article itself. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I see now this is the same article mentioned by the SPA acct above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

There's nothing in English, it's all in Farsi where he is quite notable in Iran per sources above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert at reading Google translations of Farsi, but as far as I can tell, these are a mixture of adverts (for book discussion), blogs, web news sources, 404 errors, and some legit write-ups on the subject, though again I cannot judge the level of any of these outlets. (That is, are they akin to NYT, or more like a local paper?) I take the observable fact that the subject has never published anything as a much more telling indicator, especially since he appears to write in English. For example, here is the abstract to his paper discussed above. Related to this, what would the claim to notability be? (Article currently lacks this.) Many of the sources you cite, e.g. this one, talk about a book he's written, but again nothing shows-up in WorldCat. Perhaps we should search under a different name? Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The sources are about the book since that is how we determine notability per AUTHOR #3 ("multiple reviews in reliable sources"). They sources are not adverts or blogs, for example [1] is the Iran Book News Agency, a known reliable source. [2] is a News Agency, [3] is a News Agency, [4] is a journal, and so on. The web site styles are typical of Iran, stuck in 1995, look at the institutions. WorldCat is an American institution - it's highly unlikely, almost impossible, that Iranian state libraries share data with the American-based OCLC. A search of "Iran" shows no results in the OCLC members list.[19] He has written a few things in English it seems, but his primary language is Farsi working in Iran. Also these sources are not complete, please do continue searching on his Farsi name I gave up after 300+ Google hits they just keep going. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not an expert on Iranian literature, so I'm not sure how to interpret "typical of Iran, stuck in 1995". My guess is that these news agencies are not the Iranian equivalents of NYT or other such outlets for which a published review of a book is conclusive proof of notability. The relationship between Iranian state libraries and WorldCat seems to be non sequitur support for the argument that we should not be surprised Hekmat's work doesn't appear in WorldCat. Yet, WorldCat lists books by Iranian authors both in their native language and in English and indeed shows that WP-notable Iranian authors like Gholam-Hossein Sa'edi or Bozorg Alavi have many hundreds of holdings, i.e. what we would expect as evidence for notability. So, one must ask why Hekmat's books don't appear there. I don't know the answer, but something like "anti-Iranian bias of the western publishing infrastructure" is probably not it. Google hits are irrelevant, so I'm not sure there's much use in discussing those. I'm going to retire from this thread now, but will be glad to switch positions if something conclusive can be found...I couldn't find it. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. It's up to the article's proponents to demonstrate notability beyond doubt and I don't see that they have done it here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Since the Persian/Farsi sources are causing confusion, I've create more complete citations below. All of these sources are reliable (and used throughout Wikipedia) and is significant coverage in multiple sources per WP:GNG. A person from Iran will be most notable within Iran and in Iranian sources, and not, to pick some random examples, sources in the United States or Brazil or Japan.

"نصرالله حکمت: ابن‌عربی در «فتوحات مکیه» از هنر به معنای خا کلمه بحث کرده است" (Google translation), Iran Book News Agency (IBNA) (About IBNA), Persian date 16 Mordad 1391. Abstract: IBNA reviews a speech given by Nasrollah Hekmat concerning his book "The Art of Wisdom and Mystical Arabia".
خبرگزاري فارس: كتاب «نقش خيال در فلسفه فارابي» نوشته «نصرالله حكمت» از سوي انتشارات «الهام» منتشر مي‌شود (Google translation), Fars News Agency (About Fars), Persian date Aban 17 1392. Abstract: Nasrollah is quoted "in an interview with reporters" concerning a book published by another author and provides biographical details about Nasrollah.
"«نصرالله حكمت» در راديو گفت‌وگو از همايش‌های مولانا می‌گويد" (Google translation), Iranian Quran News Agency (IQNA) (About IQNA), Persian date Aban 02 1392. Abstract: News report on a separate radio interview involving Nasrallah.
نصرالله حكمت (Google translate), magiran.com (Iranian Journal), 3456 Issue. Abstract: Discusses Nasrallah including but not limited to an interview.
دکتر نصرالله حکمت : کتاب "منهاج الولایه" حاوی فلسفه زندگی است آرشيو شده (Google translate), Aftab ("Iran and World News"), Mehr News Agency. Persian date 24 Mehr 1384. Abstract: Review of book and conference by Nasrallah.
زندگی و انديشه فارابی» در سرای اهل قلم نقد و بررسی می‌شود(Google translate), Great Islamic Encyclopedia Center (About GIEC), Persian date 1387/5/15. Abstract: Reviews the book "The Life and Thought Hakim Abu Nasr Farabi" by Nasrallah.
Book Awards, Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), Persian date Bahman 14 1385. Abstract: Nasrallah biographical profile by ISNA as part of an award nomination.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does he have a page on any other Wikipedias? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Notability is defined by the sources, not by existence on other Wikipedia's. There are many reasons why people don't participate in other Wikipedia's that has nothing to do with notabilty. The only thing that would provide material guidance is if he did have a page on another Wikipedia and was deleted, we could look at the AfD and use any evidence found there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. But it would help if there were. Is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Interwiki links are viewable on every Wikipedia page, box on the lower left side says "languages", underneath "tools" and "print/export". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched for sources under Iranian/Persian scholars/academics/theologians/philosophers to see if I could find anything about him that would make him stand out from the crowd of professors/academics teaching philosophy/religion. I failed. There are indeed English language sites which list present-day Iranian people pf note in every field, in Iran and abroad, but his name does not figure in any of the ones I have seen. His output, too, appears to be pretty limited for someone who is being called a leading philosopher. In fact, even his own university site says little about him. The Persian sources with English translations cited above refer to a speech, a radio interview and other minor events. I would have liked to see sources which discuss him and his work rather than read about what he says about other theologians/philosophers. That is, after all, his day job. I get the impression this article has been written by an admirer of the subject. Fair enough, but notabilty cannot be taken for granted going by what he/she says. I think one would have heard more about the subject if he were a renowned or notable figure in his field. Philosophy knows no barriers. - Zananiri (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I presented reliable sources above. I spent a number of hours finding and formatting these sources. If this article is to be deleted, the participants here will need to explain why the sources presented do not count as significant coverage in multiple sources per WP:GNG. Nobody has done that. The sources cover the same sorts of activities we see English sources about someone in the news, and they do cover his work not just what he says about other people. You would like more sources from his University, you would like him to be "renowned in his field", you would like the sources to be in English -- me too, but according to WP:GNG, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is how we determine notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and meaningful are two different things. You may have answered your own question! Forget English sites, though, as I said, I have found quite a few which list notable or prominent Iranians in all fields. But I have not found anything meaningful in Persian sources either, which would make him notable, which, I think, speaks volumes, and I, too, spent quite some time looking for them, being conversant with the script. The coverage is minimal as is his output, which is why, I think, the sources cited here can be discounted. Notability would have ensured more and better results. Someone has already mentioned WorldCat. I didn't find anything at the Open Library site either, usually a good port of call to locate titles and authors in any language, particularly Oriental languages. No one is questioning his status as a professor, but plenty of articles have been deleted because the subject just held that title. So why should this one be kept! If the subject is supposed to be a prominent or notable philosopher. I'm afraid, I have yet to see any evidence of that. As for being a notable professor, such academics everywhere these days are expected to have published more than just a few articles and the odd book on their subject. Even here, his output by Oriental and international standards seems to be extremely limited.- Zananiri (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, multiple reliable sources have been found. It sounds like your delete vote is based on a higher bar of inclusion than WP:GNG. Notability for Wikipedia is not the same as "prominent" or "renowned". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely that one does not have to be prominent or renowned to have an article here, but even some semblance of notability requires a certain degree of recognition and I have to agree with Agricola44 about the SPA element in this article. WP:GNG cannot be assumed on the basis of what I have seen so far or what the subject has done to date.- Zananiri (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree but as I said, multiple reliable sources have been found that cover this topic in depth, per W:GNG. The subject has mainstream media recognition. Also, SPAs create a large portion of Wikipedia's new articles (see New Page Patrol or AfC), it's how Wikipedia gets a lot of its new content, SPA shouldn't prejudice (unless there are behavior issues like sock or whatever). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll have to leave it at that. What may seem to be in-depth to one person is academic. Agricola44 has made some pertinent points about WORLDCAT and the subject's total omission there. Nothing to do with the site being an American venture, in my view. I think that is a biased opinion, as other Iranian authors and academics are there, and here, too, I agree with Agricola44. I made my own observations about the Open Library. No one to date has seen fit to include him there either. Anyone could have done that. However, I am keeping an open mind and would change my own !vote immediately, if presented with irrefutable evidence about the subject's notability, and him not being just another teacher at a university. Going by what I have seen presented here so far, or seen through my own searches online, and given the subject's extremely low publishing output, I remain unconvinced. so like Agricola44 I, too, am retiring from this discussion, as we seem to be going around in circles.- Zananiri (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to a recent post by User:Randykitty, who I personally respect as an expert on these topics, WorldCat is not a reliable source for a number of reasons. It's unfortunately often relied on in AfD discussions and we need an essay describing its pitfalls, similar to the WP:GHITS essay. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, Green Cardamon. However, I think you are partially misinterpreting me. I do indeed think that WorldCat contains many errors and that being listed in it does not mean a great deal. Especially open access journals will often get a large number of hits in it, basically only meaning that a lot of libraries have included a link to the journal somewhere on their websites (and the journal being OA, that increases their coverage without it costing them a dime). However, if, in contrast, something is not even in WorldCat, that does suggest that something is not notable at all. On the other hand, this goes mainly for Western aurthors, because, as far as I know, WorldCat's coverage is more sketchy outside of Europe and North America, which may explain low holdings for someone publishing in Farsi. (I guess I'm not really being helpful here... ;-) I am not very familiar with Farsi publications, so I'm not going to !vote here, but I just wanted to clarify this point. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it would meet WP:AUTHOR. The difficulty in finding sources is an example of cultural bias. I endorse what Randykitty says about WorldCat--It is less and less reliable as one goes w=away from the US. For Iranian books on philosophy it is likely to have essentially no coverage except for the most important classical works, because it is extremely rare for a US academic library to every buy them. That has no relationship to their importance in Iran, & enWP covers the world. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC) .[reply]
Comment. Sorry to weigh-in here again, but I think there are some assertions that must be corrected. In my opinion WorldCat holdings are to books much like citations are to journal articles: mere presence does not necessarily prove notability, but if a subject has "enough of them" (and the threshold for this is open to good-faith debate, for example adjusting for academic field, for geographic location that might be associated with lower coverage, etc.) then that is a very good indicator of notability. Conversely, complete absence is a strong indicator of lack of notability because the enormous reach of these resources usually suggests that something like "vanity press", "self published", "local distribution only", or some such is a more parsimonious explanation than something like "systematic anti-Iranian bias of the western publishing infrastructure". It is simply untrue that WorldCat does not have the necessary presence to use as a tool for evaluating publication status of foreign authors. For example, it is easy to find Iranian authors on WP of debatable notability (judging by their article sources) who nevertheless have Farsi-language, foreign-published books listed in WorldCat: Bijan Najdi's book Dobâreh az hamaan Khiaban-hâ (published in Tehran) or Ali Ashraf Darvishian's book Afsanehha va matalhaye kordi being 2 examples. Though again I am no expert on Iranian literature, I doubt that these are important classical works and, indeed they're not held by any US library system. The bottom line is that there should be serious doubts about "keep" based on WP:AUTHOR if there is a complete absence from WorldCat. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment GreenCardamom has done yoemanlike work in establishing that there are substantial Farsi RS for this scholar, but we are still left with a paucity of English RS. He undoubtedly deserves an article on Farsi Wikipedia, but does that notability transfer to English Wikipedia when very few readers and editors can verify those sources? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 14 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dalee Water

[edit]

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

Local company lacking notability. A small amount of local coverage falls short on WP:CORPDEPTH. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage in local newspapers, none of which are regional level. Royal broil 05:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A company with coverage in its local press, as would be expected, but insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 4 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. v/r - T P 02:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social discovery platform

[edit]

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

I PRODded this article, and it was deleted. But soon after, a much-shorter version was recreated.

WP:NEO says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." (Please see also WP:42 and its definition of reliable secondary sources.) I looked on Google News a month ago but I don't think I found two such sources. Let's delete this article until multiple mainstream publications, such as The New York Times or BusinessWeek, provide definitions of this new term. Not tech-related trade publications. And definitely not websites like Mashable or The Drum or TechCrunch.

Later, if the term catches on, someone may contact the deleting admin, show them any new major sources which have been published, and request undeletion.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CNN has an article about this, 'Social discovery' is this year's hot SXSW trend]. I found lots of other article using the term to describe various apps, but not many talking about the term itself. May I ask why you don't consider Mashable and TechCrunch reliable sources? --Cerebellum (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Ihcoyc has written elsewhere: "The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world. Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business." —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! I'm not sure I entirely agree but it's certainly food for thought. I'm used to thinking about notability solely in terms of verifiability, so I only analyze sources based on their reliability, not so much their audience. Really though, WP:INDISCRIMINATE must be considered also, which I suppose is where this idea and the local coverage part of WP:CORP come from. Thanks for the reply! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:47, 24 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I express no opinion about this article, but I do want to point out that the lengthy quote above is simply the opinion of one editor, rather than policy, guideline or any established consensus view. Trade publications vary in reliability, as does the reliability of content within trade publications. In my view, staff signed feature articles confer more notability than routine new product announcements. Aviation Week & Space Technology, though not a general circulation publication, is eminently reliable. If coverage in video game publications confers notability, so too should professional publications covering computer controlled machine tools or firefighting technology. And if the world's three leading vintage blacksmithing publications profile one of the best 21st century blacksmiths, I am inclined to accept that person's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a thing. I'm seeing significant coverage in Google News, and I don't buy the argument that technical journals fail to establish notability. I agree that mainstream, general-interest journals may be an indication of greater notability, but there's not much point in ranking notability. Once you have the minimum amount, you're all set. By my research, it satisfies WP:NEO and WP:N. For those who desire coverage by non-tech journalists, here's an article in The New York Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nominator - "Let's delete this article until multiple mainstream publications, such as The New York Times or BusinessWeek, provide definitions of this new term." I give you The The New York Times and CNN... Meets the GNG. The Steve 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CNNMoney ref is perhaps acceptable.

But the New York Times ref which you and RichardStevens89 cite is not a newspaper article. It's instead a post on a Times-run weblog. I do not dispute that the post is reliable. I just dispute your claim that this weblog is a "mainstream publication".

Why am I being picky about notability?

Because if I'm not picky, we may end up with a low-quality article. And the article may end up full of low-quality text like the following text (of unencyclopedic tone) contributed by User:ReginaldTQ (talk):

"Social discovery is the practice of utilizing technology to find and meet new people. Technology is used to discover new people and sometimes new experiences shopping, meeting friends or even traveling. The discovery of new people is often in real-time, enabled by mobile apps. However, social discovery is not limited to meeting people in real-time, it also leads to sales and revenue for companies via social media. An example of retail would be the addition of social sharing with music, through the iTunes music store. There is a social component to discovering new music."

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BITS: "A daily e-mail newsletter on the business of technology, with coverage from Times staff writers and a roundup of news from across the Web." You're right, its not part of the Times print stories. It's more informal stories from their staff writers, and it's in electronic format only. However, more and more reliable sources are digital only. Where does a Times staff newsletter fit in?

As far as any "low-quality text", that is an article editing problem, easily fixable, and shouldn't affect whether the subject is notable or not. The Steve 06:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Before making a decision on this, is there a way for us to have a look at the the version of the article that was deleted 22 September? ~KvnG 17:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply talk to the admin who deleted it, User:Legoktm. Ask him/her to undelete all the deleted revisions, at least for the time being. —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a request on this administrator's talk page. ~KvnG 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted article now available here. ~KvnG 17:10, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Social discovery definitely is notable and, since there's not already a separate article on that topic, I'm going to give the benefit of doubt and assume that's what's intended here. ~KvnG 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per CNN and NYT. Even if the NYT coverage is on a NYT blog, it's still NYT, and it's still reliable. If it were a SPS, that would be a different story, but does anyone really think that posts on a NYT owned/branded blog aren't subject to editorial review? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:36, 5 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. Michig (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kenneth Barton

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see him as meeting our notability standards. The article was kept, in the early days of wp, as no consensus ... but even the discussion at that AfD would not seem to support a no consensus close under today's standards. Epeefleche (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) turned up nothing significant on this person, just mirrors of previous Wikipedia article versions. Fails WP:ANYBIO and I don't see evidence that his publications, as discussed in the 2006 AfD, would take him to WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Secondary school teachers are usually not notable, barring extraordinary evidence, and here we have no evidence at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence of notability; per David Eppstein. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete headmasters of public schools (in the proper British sense), especially those historical (i.e. not BLP in land), yes, minimal stubs on lower ranking professionals, however hard working, no, unless they played a single game of first class cricket, in which case that's entirely different. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded in a way that proves notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 8 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stages & Stereos

[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking ghits and Gnews or substance. Article references are trivial in nature. Fails WP:NMUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stages and Stereos passes both 6 and 7 on WP:NMUSIC. The singer, Daniel Lancaster, has performed with Mayday Parade and appeared on two of their records as well as live. Their current touring guitarist is a former member of Go Radio. This is all in the article. There are plenty of national news stories that aren't trivial, for example, PureVolume, a huge music website, had an exclusive stream of their new EP. This was far more press than an article announcing they were performing on a certain date with another act.

http://www.purevolume.com/news/stages-and-stereos-small-town-favorites-stream

I understand your concern and deletion nomination, but I assure you this band should have an article. Let's work together so we have an article that meets what you need to see to remove deletion notices.

--NArca9 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better than listings. Does not pass 6 as none of the members are independently notable. Does not pass 7 due to the lack of any evidence and there no suggestion anywhere of them being prominent in any way apart from the vague suggestion above. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:49, 24 October 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, Wifione ^Message 15:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE WORTHY Daniel Lancaster has performed on two Mayday Parade releases, both of which are released on Atlantic Records. That certainly passes number 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.136.233 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 6 requires 2 members, who besides Lancaster fills this requirement? reddogsix (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alex Reed of Go Radio has become a touring member of the band.

--NArca9 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 4 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. v/r - T P 02:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quidgest

[edit]

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

Non notable organization Küñall (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found lots of substantial coverage in a Google News search. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where? I found no substantial coverage from reliable sources. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google News. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit of Portuguese-language coverage but I've no idea if these are reliable sources[20][21][22][23][24][25] Very little English-language coverage (English being the international language of computing/IT, I'd expect something if their products were significant): the best I found was[26]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 4 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 Ain Shams University. v/r - T P 02:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Institute of Collaborative and Administrative Studies

[edit]

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

Seems to be a division of an Egyptian university. No sources, no sign of notability as per WP:ORG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ain Shams University. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ain Shams University - there is every chance that this Institution could be notable but it will take a search of Arabic sources to establish this. Meanwhile, this looks the practical option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:09, 5 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. No valid rationale for deletion presented. Being recreated but not improved is a reason to improve. Psychonaut pointed to sources and even ViperSnake151 says the article is allowable - but barely. I do not see a consensus to delete. v/r - T P 02:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was re-created without making improvements to it for close to a year. There are no sources (primary or secondary), no reason given in the topic to indicate notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources establishing notability (articles in Mac Power, MacPeople, and possibly also c't; plus coverage on Austrian national radio) were already mentioned on the talk page. The fact that no one has gotten around to adding them to the article yet is not a reason to delete the article. AfD is not a substitute for cleaning up the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in short, your rebuttal is that someone else (not you) should do the work to promote the program. TEDickey (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "promote" software here. My rebuttal is that this nomination is out of order because you failed to perform even the most cursory of checks as instructed at Wikipedia:Afd#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. (I will charitably assume that this is the result of gross negligence rather than bad faith.) Now that your attention has been drawn to the existence of sources you still aren't doing anything to impeach their reliability. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

provide the sources for discussion. any other response is nonconstructive. TEDickey (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In its current state, this article is barely allowable. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 4 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 merge to Subhas Chandra Bose. Comments regarding the preservation of this article have only pointed to her relationship with Subhas Chandra Bose, which is not a policy backed argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Schenkl

[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I don't know if she herself did anything particularly notable; but, her marriage with Subhas Chandra Bose was what she is notable for. There are several hits in google web and book searches. Meets WP:BASIC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the marriage itself is notable enough, because it remained controversial for years. There were speculations whether Shenkel is really Bose's wife or not. The marriage was kept in secrecy for various reasons. Unfortunately, I cannot supply online references from newspapers because those were Bengali newspapers from 1990s or before. See this, this. It remained a rather mysterious marriage, and a controversy whether she is really the wife or not. That's why Schenkle meets notability, slightly above than just a relationship. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason for deletion given. The claim to notability is being secretary and wife of one of the most famous of all Indian independence leaders. The former, at least, is likely to give her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, relationships do not confer notability. If you can point me to a biography or significant newspaper coverage of her, that would establish notability. Garamond Lethet c 13:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships usually don't, but positions (such as secretary) can do. And as Dwaipayanc says, it was a controversial marriage (and may not have even been a marriage), which may make her notable even for her relationship. Print sources are acceptable, and Dwaipayanc says there is information from Bengali newspapers. And there are a number of references to her even online. Her notability may be borderline, but I do think it's there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but consider merge or redirect - If there really were no claim to notability, A7 would apply here. However, notability does appear to be pretty weak. In such a case, I'd consider the question of WP:DUE, if maybe she's not worth an entire article but certainly a mention or a section in another article. As there are several claims to sources about this, I believe the best thing to do would be to allow improvements to happen, and if they don't within a reasonable amount of time, to merge or redirect the article as appropriate. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect to Subhash Chandra Bose. If her notability solely derives from her relationship to him, then information about her belongs in that article. This is particularly true given how short and, ultimately, uninformative this article is. If, as people point out, the marriage is controversial, then that is surely controversy related to Bose, and belongs there. Put it this way: is it controversial that Schenkl was married, or controversial that Bose was married? Since Schenkl herself is not independently famous, I believe it is the former, not the latter. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Subhash Chandra Bose, with no prejudice against de-merging if/when additional sourced content is found. I read through the introduction of Letters to Emilie Schenkl book and the relevant book extract from His Majesty’s Opponent with a view to beefing up the article, but didn't find much details about Schenkl to add. The current version can safely be merged with the Bose article (where the information would be relevant in any case) w/o any loss of details, and better context. Abecedare (talk) 02:18, 4 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. Sort of withdrawn by nominator, but consensus is to keep the article anyway. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everybodys Jesus

[edit]

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

This and Everytime (Butterfingers song) are singles notable for charting on the Triple J Hot 100 of the year, this chart is not mentioned on WP:Record charts and so is not a significant sales chart as dictated by WP:NSONGS criterion #1. Laun chba ller 08:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Everybodys Jesus has actually charted on the AIR charts they satisfy WP:NSONG - thanks Peter James - it's just Everytime now.--Laun chba ller 07:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Dan arndt who should be thanked for that, I haven't edited that page. Peter James (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not sure about this, as I can't find much coverage. For musicians, charts are almost a guarantee of notability but for songs less so, as it depends on the amount that can be written based on the sources and the content can exist whether in a separate article or not. One more source of significant coverage would probably be enough, but if there's no more than what is currently cited, maybe it should be merged. Peter James (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The single charted both on the ARIA Charts and the AIR Charts (both are which are National charts) therefore satsifying Criteria #1 of WP:NSONG. The song, "Jesus I Was Evil" was originally released by Darcy Clay (peaking at No.5 on the NZ singles charts) before being released by Butterfingers therefore satisfying Criteria #3 of WP:NSONG. The fact that it charted No.69 on the Hottest 100 for 2005 supports that the claim that the song reecieved high rotation on the national radio network.Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt: Jesus I Was Evil does not have any references and does not even mention the fact that it charted - could you work your magic on to that?--Laun chba ller 10:59, 6 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability established by ARIA Charts and high rotation on a national radio network.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability in print sources, irrespective of which print sources and charts issues. Meets WP:GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not the highest-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 6 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 merge to Transcendental Meditation. v/r - T P 02:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TM-Sidhi program

[edit]

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

Redirect to the main TM article as an unneeded walled garden WP:CFORK/dupliate of TM Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads the article, one will find that TM and the TM-Sidhi program are different techniques. Article should be kept. --Uncreated (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads the article, one finds "The TM-Sidhi program is a form of meditation introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1975. It is based on, and described as a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM)" It is the same topic, and should be merged. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion before. Saying something is a natural extension of another thing...does not make them the same thing. This article is well sourced and describes a very different technique than Transcendental Meditation. --Uncreated (talk) 03:49, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have notified several wikiprojects and noticeboards about this discussion to get a wider consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - though I'd note that this doesn't need an AfD to carry out. Any material moved must of course comply with WP:NPOV, rather than parroting the unverifiable (and frankly ridiculous) claims of proponents and then adding 'disclaimers' as the existing article seems prone to doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transcendental Meditation. We have a surprisingly large walled-garden of TM articles. "Merging" such systematically skewed content would be a folly - that effort would be better spent on improving the target article. bobrayner (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TM, per Bobrayner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with substantial trimming per AndyTheGrump there seems to be adequate material for some addition to the TM article but with some serious redaction of unsupported claims and duplicate material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Transcendental meditation. There's clearly a lot of dubious and/or duplicative material here, and as others have alluded to, a real walled garden problem in this topic area. Merging this article would be a reasonable step in bringing this topic area into line with this project's standards. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TM—this material is non-notable. EMP (talk) 23:55, 12 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. No sources have been provided to establish notability of this person. (This includes the source re-provided by User:Stalwart111 at the end of this discussion, which was already in the article and had been reviewed by the discussing editors here.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tomas

[edit]

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

Fails notability standards for biographies. Profiled by various ufologists, he remains essentially unknown outside of that parochial community and so no neutral nor reliable article can be written about him. jps (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) o16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards Keep. Nominator seems to acknowledge that he's notable within the circle of UFOologists and their followers. Whether someone is notable for a reputable field of study or a fringe field of inquiry seems irrelevant. He's an influential author within his area of "study". Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article years ago (one of my first articles) as the result of a request at WP:RA (which I had been told was a good way to get started). I was conscious then that notability relied on commentary from people the subject probably new in person when he was alive. It is also true, though, that his book We Are Not The First has been cited fairly extensively in other books, some reliable publications, others self-published hogwash. It's niche notability (as the nominator suggests) but I'm inclined to think notability is there. Stalwart111 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a WP:FRINGE subject (ancient astronauts) and thus requires non-fringe sources. Are there any non-fringe reliable sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient astronauts" was one of his areas of study but he is also variously described as an "Atlantis expert" and modern UFO theorist/analyst. He is probably best known for his "ancient astronauts" theories (being the subject of a couple of his books) but a lot of his work related to more modern UFO sightings (thus his founding of the Australian Flying Saucer Bureau). Invariably, though, his theories were fringe theories and few "mainstream" sources would have responded to his claims. The majority of coverage (for him or his books) is from others who had an interest in his theories. Stalwart111 04:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage outside of fringe sources per FRINGE and GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and the question and reasoning by Green Cardamom. I was also unable to find coverage in reliable, non-fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see reliable sources for this one. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there seems to be a fairly strong consensus that this subject doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. That's fair enough, but given the original request at WP:RA and the ten-or-so people who look at this each day, would anyone have a particular objection to a selective merge (a line or two) and a redirect to Australian ufology? Green Cardamom, Cullen328, and LibStar, your thoughts? Stalwart111 07:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to your proposal if and only if you can cite even one instance of coverage in a reliable, independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible approach for the redirect, one reliable independent source. For inclusion in Australian ufology article sourcing is less stringent as there is leeway to use primary sources if required if only to simply verify he exists, in a list of people for example. However to merge content, that would probably require reliable independent sources (depending on the content). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'd only propose to include him in the list of keynote speakers for the 1965 Ballarat conference, the popularity of which seems to have led to him publishing his books. The best source would be Bill Chalker's archive of the The Australasian Ufologist Magazine. From what I can tell, that magazine is one of the few Tomas didn't play a role in publishing (so it is reasonably independent of him) though obviously Chalker met Tomas (and includes a note about talking to his wife). It's not great for establishing notability, admittedly, but I think it's probably okay for a half-line mention and a redirect. Like I said, I'll not argue for keeping the article but redirects are cheap and it would seem that for anyone looking for him, being directed to that article would be better than nothing. Stalwart111 23:22, 6 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) 16:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific "Big Boy" No. 4012

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Union Pacific "Big Boy" No. 4012

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

Delete This individual example of a product does not meet notability requirements and this article is a content fork. There is nothing about the history of this particular example that sets it apart from other locomotives of the same type. Most of the article simply repeats information already available at the main article. The research links provided above all refer to 4012 being on display and mention nothing more. What is so special about 4012 that it merits its own article? Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is entirely appropriate to have an article about the locomotive type, and also about this specific locomotive. This locomotive is a major item on display at the Steamtown National Historic Site, one of the finest railroad museums in the world, and has its own unique history as documented in many railroad books. I believe quite strongly that articles about individual, well-documented historic locomotives are appropriate for this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article inclusion is determined by following the notability guidelines, not our individual beliefs. What, if anything, is unique about 4012? Where is the significant national (or even regional) media coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject? The notability guidelines say "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" - where is that coverage of 4012 as an individual unit? Looking at the references section of the article, 4012 does not appear to be well documented in any railroad books - there are literally none referenced. The automated research links provided above turn up nothing other than the already established fact that 4012 is on display. Yes, 4012 is in the collection of a fine museum, but simply being on display in a museum is not enough to merit notability. Ch Th Jo (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book called The Big Legacy of the Union Pacific Big Boy: Why Railfans Still Love the "World's Largest" Steam Locomotive, which discusses the eight surviving examples, including No. 4012.

In 1968, Railway magazine wrote, "Preeminent is one of the Union Pacific "Big Boys" — the most powerful locomotives ever built in the United States. No. 4012 is a massive 4-8-8-4 built in 1941 and in service just in time to assist with hauling wartime loads over the Wahsatch Range of the Rockies between Utah and Wyoming. Standing by it, one can readily believe that it is the heaviest and largest locomotive ever built."

In 1957, Midwest Railroader wrote, "Union Pacific "Big Boy" was in town today, Sept. 3, Thursday. No. 4012, dead of course, stopped in NKP East Haven yards for servicing, enroute to Steamtown, Bellows Falls, Vt. It looked beautiful in a new paint job."

In 2005, the magazine Railroad History wrote, "Other images of interest, for instance, depict the LV's role in moving Union Pacific Big Boy 4-8-8-4 steam engine No. 4012 to Steamtown in Bellows Falls, Vt."

The 2006 book Steam Trains has a section about this locomotive, which begins, "1940 Union Pacific No. 4012, Alco 4-8-8-4 The steam locomotive grew ever larger even as diesel engines were starting to make inroads. It reached gargantuan proportions with the Union Pacific Railroad's legendary "Big Boys." Only 25 Big Boy engines were built, but they were monsters. Each weighed one million, two hundred thousand pounds. They stretched nearly to the 50-yard line of a football field. The 4-8-8-4 locomotives were actually two engines in one. Behind the cowcatcher and pilot wheels was a massive pair of cylinders and side rods powering eight driving wheels. Right behind the first set of drivers was another matching pair of big cylinders and eight more driving wheels. A trailing truck supported the cavernous coal-burning firebox and cab. Attached to the Big Boy was a 14-wheeled "centipede" tender that held 56,000 lbs. of coal and 25,000 gallons of water. Built by Alco, these behemoths were designed to pull 150 car freights through the Wyoming-Utah Wasatch Mountains without helper engines. This was something that the Big Boys did with ease."

Anna Dubrovsky's 2011 book Pennsylvania says "It's home to one of eight surviving “Big Boy" steam locomotives and the only one stored east of Wisconsin. Weighing in at 1.2 million pounds, Union Pacific No. 4012 was one of 25 Big Boys built in the 1940s to pull long freight trains over the mountains of Utah and Wyoming. Though it no longer operates, it's among the standouts in the collection of locomotives, passenger cars, freight cars, and maintenance-of-way equipment at Steamtown "

These references over half a century show that this specific locomotive is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These references simply state facts that are applicable to all Big Boy locomotives and do not demonstrate that 4012 is special or unique. These references do nothing do distinguish 4012 from every other Big Boy. At best these references offer only passing mentions of 4012. These references build the case that the Big Boy series is notable, but do very little for 4012 in particular. If this is the best that is available, 4012 is clearly not notable. (edited to add a proper signature) Ch Th Jo (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable and the article itself has scope for development. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand your idea, in terms of the notability guidelines, why 4012 is "clearly notable". So far, even after Cullen's research, no one has uncovered any facts about 4012 that distinguish it from all other Big Boy locomotives. What about 4012 is special or different? (edited to add a proper signature) Ch Th Jo (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines do not require facts which distinguish this individual locomotive from others. We require reliable sources covering this particular locomotive in depth. "Keep" does not preclude a consensual merge with Union Pacific Big Boy and I wouldn't regard a merge as out of the question. Although I often favour "merge" if a topic is not notable, when it is notable I prefer to leave this to the editors of the article rather than to AfD which is often remote and uninformed. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree on the notability per Cullen328 above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above. --Bhtpbank (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and friendly WP:TROUT for Ch Th Jo (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outlined above; the nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems indeed from the sources that the specific locomotive is notable. It can happen, and lack of notability should not be assumed just because it seems unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not at all unlikely to any serious student of railroading that individual locomotives can be notable. See Sierra No. 3 for another example, DGG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. I should have said "seems unlikely to people who do not know the field." In talking about WP, I have frequently used our articles in this subject area as examples the sort of thing WP could and should -- and does -- cover in detail. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 8 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 T-Pain_discography#Studio_albums. v/r - T P 02:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoicville: The Phoenix

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. No release date or even release period, cover artwork or tracklisting. The entire article is also entirely unsourced and largely incorrect. STATic message me! 01:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near ready for an article yet, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Koala15 (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to T-Pain_discography#Studio_albums. We do have confirmation that this is the working title for the album at this point in time ([27]). What we don't have is enough coverage to show that this album ultimately merits its own article right now. It'll likely be more notable once it releases or at least closer to release, but it's not independently notable enough right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had tagged this article WP:CRYSTAL before, My mistake was I PROD'ed it Mlpearc (powwow) 23:10, 13 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tame Valley Travel Limited

[edit]

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

Very short lived bus company failing GNG -Apart from a Facebook page, There's nothing whatsoever regarding this company.
Seems the only "proof" for its existence is the article & that's it.... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned by the nominator, my searches inlcuding Google News and Books provided nothing. To make matters worse, the article has pretty much stayed the same for three years ~~and there isn't even an indication of years~~ (Flickr photo below suggests 1991). Small companies take time to garner news coverage but if this article is correct, it was bought out after three months so it was obviously that small and short lived. This article does seem to be the only thing holding this company online aside from Wikipedia mirrors, of course. When I searched with the buyer, Burman Limited, I actually found a Flickr photo (someone even mentions this Wikipedia article) that at least provides a little more insight on this company but that one link can't be used for reliability or significance. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A minor NN defunct bus company. We have deleted all the bus route articles some months ago. Many of the bus companies need to follow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 8 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx (DJ)

[edit]

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

Very minor Israeli DJ who has little or no notability and I think fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Originally added a Speedy Deletion A9, but Laun chba ller informed me it was unsuitable and removed it accordingly. Seems to me to be non-notable. scope_creep talk 19:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2.--Laun chba ller 19:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I couldn't find much in the way of coverage, but he did have a hit and I don't see any real benefit from deleting this. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 4 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, AfD proposal withdrawn. -- Mdd (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kevin C. Dittman

[edit]

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

Claims notability so can't csd but I believe this individual fails WP:AUTHOR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dittman is co-author of: Bentley, Lonnie D., Kevin C. Dittman, and Jeffrey L. Whitten. Systems analysis and design methods. (1986, 1997, 2004), which is among the most popular and most cited textbooks in field of systems analysis since the 1980s, see Google Scholar. -- Mdd (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake please withdraw. I didn't see that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 01:23, 4 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Grey (Out of the Grey album)

[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was in the industry magazines' best of. This was stated in the band's article and I referenced it and moved it to the article. WP:BEFORE was clearly not conducted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Walter Görlitz. -- Mdd (talk) 01:33, 4 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. WP:NOTDIR — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook add-ins

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The introduction (the only portion of the article that actually has any substance) is already found in the main Outlook article, and everything beyond that is little more than a directory. Perhaps it could be converted to "List of Microsoft Outlook add-ins," but even then, I'm not sure there are enough notable add-ins to make that a worthwhile effort. Blurred203 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. If there were enough reliable sources, this could be a "List Of" article, but good luck with that. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the section about Outlook Add-ins that is currently in the Microsoft Outlook section does not contain enough useful information. For instance, it should mention that add-ins can be developed either in Visual Studio or using 3rd party development tools like Add-in Express. Also, it should indicate that Outlook Web Apps do not support add-ins. A list of add-ins I think is always useful, and is a reason for why I like Wikipedia, which is the ability to find and connect information from different sources. I would like to keep the article and expand it as I find it useful currently, but lacking details. If the article is kept I can expand it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosgonzalezgancedo (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should be able to merge that information into the section without issue. There are several sites I can see on a quick Google search which offer listings of Outlook add-ins, and those sites are meant for listings such as these. Wikipedia is not. Jon (aka Blurred203) holler 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is currently a linkfarm of non-notable add-ins. The very small set of notable add-ins could be merged into the main Outlook article.Dialectric (talk) 17:45, 10 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.