< 14 October	16 October >

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

The result was speedy keep proxy nomination. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done as per request of SmartProgrammer on Digital Spy Forums. --Broompower960 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 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. The concensus is that this needs to be mentioned, but is not sufficient for a stand-alone article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citrusville[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) 23:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe, worthy of a brief mention there but not a standalone article. The nominator is, however, reminded that a claim of "no assertion for improvement" is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. I agree with Bushranger. This topic is not notable enough for its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 16 October 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 clearly that he does not meet the criteria for an article at this time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Barrett[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. PROD was contested without any explanation. JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. Like all the irish footballers nominated in the last couple of months, he has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football or received significant non-routine coverage for any other activity within football. The sources presented are nothing more than routine repots. Perhaps there is more of a need to look at these AfDs as a group rather than individually? Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 16 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kane (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. "Holding a DNS key" does not establish encyclopedic notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's actually got quite a bit of coverage for this: The Guardian, Metro, the Register, and the Telegraph. They're all basically about the same thing, but there are less substantial quotations in other articles, where he's presented as an expert, such The New York Times and the Register. I agree that he's not a very exciting guy, but he does seem to get some real press attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a google search for "Paul Kane DNS" returns many hits, including TechRadar and University of Bath, which combined with NRP's sources show he easily meets WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Domain Name System Security Extensions (making a new section on the keyholders). I updated the article to make it more accurate. It should be apparent that this is a feature of the DNSSEC protocol/spec, rather than something intrinsic to the entire internet. Not all the key holders are currently known, but Dan Kaminsky (who is otherwise notable) is another. Kane only seems to be potentially notable for his role in this, not for anything else - if there is in-depth material on his other achievements (e.g. his business) I'd recommend keep, but it all seems to be a single-event news story, "local man appointed to something big that we don't quite understand", and it can be easily covered at Domain Name System Security Extensions while avoiding ridiculous claims about him holding "the key to the internet". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. Being a DNSSEC key holder is not inherently notable on its own to justify a standalone biography article. It could be notable enough to have an article about the Keyholders as a group / phenomenon, like we do for some other bureaucratic positions, but best to start at the main article and split off from there. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Institution of Engineering and Technology Ambrose Medal for 25 years of innovative work suggests significant recognition by peers and notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colapeninsula. He is not obviously otherwise notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a key holder isn't inherently notable, granted, but he does have multiple news hits with himself as the main subject (eg: "Bath entrepreneur 'holds the key' to internet security", "Internet security keyholder reveals truth behind 'Seven Keys' story". If the sources were titled and mainly about the keyholders, with Kane getting mere passing mentions, then a merge would be appropriate. But it seems he's notable for two things - that, and being CommunityDNS CEO, which is something different. A quick drill down other sources mentions him doing both. So do you redirect to Domain Name System Security Extensions or do you declare CommunityDNS the more notable term and redirect him there? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass the GNG. Kane has been covered over different periods of time. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All sources appear to concern the key. Are there are other sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source, from what appears to be a university conglomerate, dates from 2012 whereas most other sources listed so far are dated 2010. Obviously his key holdership comes up but the article is about him being awarded the IET achievement award. The article's directly about him. He gets the award. The key doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The award is a fairly significant recognition by his peers. Institution of Engineering and Technology is the largest engineering institution in the world (former IEE and IIE combined) and the Ambrose Fleming Medal only goes to one person each year[1] (though they have about half a dozen achievement awards). This suggests he is notable enough beyond the key holder, changing my vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep checked out links provided by NinjaRobotPirate. He does have genuine coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 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. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Craig (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. PROD was contested with 'Stop vandalising wiki' reason given... JMHamo (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward delete - Every single one of the sources is behind a paywall and since they are not formatted it's essentially impossible to find alternative means to review them. Can anyone even verify that they demonstrate notability? -Thibbs (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAYWALL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The paywall issue is not relevant here, the sources do not reference elements of the article that assert notability per GNG or NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yeah, I think my use of the word "paywall" may have distracted from my post. What I'm saying here is that because a paywall is used there is no way for me to ascertain notability. I'm thus only leaning delete. If it can be verified through these or other sources that this player meets GNG or NFOOTY then that's different. Again, can anyone verify the content of these refs? -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. Like all the irish footballers nominated in the last couple of months, he has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football or received significant non-routine coverage for any other activity within football. Perhaps there is more of a need to look at these AfDs as a group rather than individually? Far from vandalising WP, there seems to be a large amount of non-notable irish footballers present on WP. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VV Corvi[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a simple database entry; studied in multiple academic papers cited in the article; perfectly encyclopedic and clear-cut article with information gathered from multiple neutral, reliable sources, meets the spirit of our notability guidelines. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided in the article aren't enough, but I did some more digging, and have found dozens of studies that include this star (SIMBAD returns 35, but I found more through NASA ADS). Many of them provide more than a passing mention in a list of raw data, though it's surprising that it doesn't get much more than a few sentences of commentary in a single paper. Certainly, I haven't found a singular study. It is an Algol-style variable star, with multiple components (probably more than the 2 mentioned in this WP article). This complicates locating studies in articles, as it has so many designations, and not all of them are consistent. However, it is visible to the naked eye (barely), so it does meet criteria 1 of NASTRO. It also meets criteria 4, as [Zasche] reports that observations of the star go back 180 years. This article will take a lot of legwork and expert attention to develop beyond a stub, but I think it is possible. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed the fact that it's visible to the naked eye. I withdraw the nomination then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 16 October 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 My-Otome manga characters. Merging, if desired, can be done from article history with proper attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoe Marguerite[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of My-Otome 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) 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Ah, the horrors of fictional articles. Why not just mass redirect instead of AFDing? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My-Otome manga characters, this is getting to be crazy, I am going to merge the characters and redirect them later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that redirecting articles that have open AfDs is considered blanking and is, therefore, against policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for telling me this, while I already know the process not everyone would. I plan on merging or redirecting the articles not up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries, just wanted to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 23 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

43 Million Secrets[edit]

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

A documentary film project on a notable topic that yields zero hits on a Google News Archive search. The article claims it "was to be released [...] in October, 2011" with no evidence that that actually happened. A merge to Makers of Memories is a possibility. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of WP:NF, without prejudice against undeletion or recreation if/when release is verified and it gets requisite coverage. A redirect to the production company would be fine until then. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its just not there yet - Haymaker (talk) 12:34, 21 October 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. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tweenies episodes[edit]

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

This was redirected with the reason "unref'd for many months; doubtable validity and impossible to verify with no refs", but led to a page with no list, effectively deleting it but leaving a misleading redirect. The redirect was undone with no explanation or improvement, this was reverted so I'm bringing it to AFD where it's more likely that consensus can be reached. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and WP:GNG (no extensive reliable sources giving details about episodes). 88.104.19.237 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address is current blocked for block evasion, the other IP address the person used already blocked so they used another. Dream Focus 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid WP:SPINOUT due to the fact its size, if included in the main article, would be WP:UNDUE; it is generally accepted that lists of episodes of notable TV shows are appropriate content. A lack of references is something to be fixed, not to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason for them to be accepted as appropriate content any more than lists of bus routes (which are usually deleted), particularly without sources. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if WP:OTHERSTUFF was relevant, comparing lists of bus routes to episode lists isn't really relevant. Among other things, lists of bus routes are not WP:SPINOUTs; also, the WP:CONSENSUS is that lists of bus routes are not acceptable while lists of episodes that would be WP:UNDUE in the show's article due to length are. A lack of sources is a problem however that is a WP:SOFIXIT/WP:NOTCLEANUP issue; it should be remembered that, WP:BLPs excepted, sources are not required to be in articles to satisfy WP:V, only that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should look like other list articles for television episodes, showing the ratings, date of first airing. Valid content fork. Dream Focus 01:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any reliable source with any information about the episodes, therefore it is not possible to say anything about them, therefore we cannot sustain an article about them. A 'valid content fork' would be well referenced. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 88.104.29.3 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.104.29.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 October 2013

And what the fuck does that have to do with the price of fish? 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same range of IP addresses, that keep supporting one another in the same AFD discussions, and some of which started editing after the previous IP was blocked. Obviously you are all the same person. Dream Focus 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that needs to be included is a brief synopsis of each episode of two or three lines then there will be a lot more detail and people will be able to gather a lot more informant from the page. 21:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhoward123 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is poorly formatted, if fixed (as stated by others), it would be a proper episode list for the show. — Wylie pedia 09:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Guille[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Melissa Guille

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

Melissa Guille is barely notable. The article is a stub. None of the actions listed are notable and do little more than character assassination. There was a large block of outdated information about an Civil/Administrative proceeding under a law that has been deleted by Canadian Parliament as of Summer 2013. Most links to the article are dead. There is no mention of any actions past 2004. Furthermore, the article refers to her as a "White Supremacist" which is a serious accusation considering there was never any information to suggest any inclination of violence, derogatory attacks on other cultures, etc. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is also a reference to founding a group (which was little more than a website). The Group itself is not notable either WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed that a nomination is a vote for deletion, a second delete vote would not be counted and might be seen as confusing the process. Use "Comment" when leaving a non-vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is what the article looked like before recent deletions by the nom and IPs. This older revision might contain additional information and/or sources that could be used to weigh notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Green Cardamom. All external links are broken and were only mentioning the subject in passing. The last paragraph was entirely outdated. The outcome of the case was trivial with no fine issued [2] WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - With regards to broken links, WP:DEADLINK applies - links do not need to be "live". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article demonstrates this person is notable. She has not done anything notable. This is not "Right Wing Watch wiki" and we do not create articles with the sole purpose of tracking alleged hate crimes by others. This article has major BLP problems, and when the person is so unnotable engaging in any discussion of such accusations is questionable. However, mainly she is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:52, 26 October 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. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Cyclists[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Unremarkable organization and misinterpretation of reference source. Such as declaring blogs and newsblogs as international news to prove the organization's notability. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Depth_of_coverage and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independence_of_sources Rahat | Message 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence that the group has been written up in various articles in the national press, and that it passes WP:GNG. It may be that some of the claims made about the organisation are exaggerated, I am not in a position to say, but these are matters for normal editing if so. It is not a requirement that all references should be independent of the subject. --AJHingston (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokito.bd (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Alokito.bd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Also, WP:NEWSBLOGs (e.g. [7]) are acceptable as news sources in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. Blog references as well as the media coverage links provided in the article are acceptable drabiralam^(talk) 06:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — drabiralam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but it should be part of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The sorcerer (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — The sorcerer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The topic requires language specific changes but the topic definitely deserves to be a part of Wikipedia considering the number of times it has been on the national and international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwanq (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Ridwanq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reference about the Guardian has been removed from the National and International Media section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwanq (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Ridwanq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear Ridwanq, Providing a link of a Blog you can't tell that news of your organization has been published in international news media like The Guardian. - Rahat | Message 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references present in the article are sufficient to demonstrate that WP:ORG is met. (Came here from COIN.) SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These links fall under valid news media coverage and comply with WP:ORG. BBC Bangla[8], Daily Prothom Alo[9],[10], [11], Daily Ittefaq - [12], Bangla News 24[13][14],ATN News Young Night[15],[16],Somoy Television[17],[18],[19],The New Age [20], The Daily Star[21], Daily Prime[22], Kaler Kontho[23], The New Age [24][25][26], Independent Television[27], Financial Express[28], Channel 24 News[29], Daily Samakal[30], The Daily Star[31], signed by Drabiralam (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one article I found Bangladeshi Cyclists With Message For World Peace is from 2004 and is not about "the group initiated by Mozammel Haque with his few friends on May, 2011" as "Bangladeshi Cyclists". This article, cited above, refers to "BDCyclists", so I think we may have an article name issue. This recent version of the article seems to use the source information in a promotional way or in a way to promote the groups activities. The editors of the article should review WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:15, 17 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xshellz[edit]

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

I'm unsure if this passes WP:COMPANY - there do not appear to be third-party sources evident, and I don't suspect that 5,000 subscribers world-wide are an indicator of notability. The company has only existed for 3-4 years. I thought I would bring it here for the community to decide. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text contains terms like "we" and "our", usually signs of promotion. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up anything that would amount to WP:RS; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article lacks independent reliable source coverage to establish notability of this software. A search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:05, 21 October 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. The consensus is that the subject is not independently notable PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Area of the Moon[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) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Features of the Marvel Universe, where this area is listed. Gong show 17:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe, worthy of a brief mention there but not a standalone article. The nominator is, however, reminded that a claim of "no assertion for improvement" is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 16 October 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 Electronic portfolio. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online portfolio[edit]

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

I PRODded this earlier but the PROD tag was removed by someone giving a reason (WP:RS found) that was unrelated to the reasons I'd given for deletion. My reasons: Basically a dictionary definition, a trivial one (an online portfolio is a portfolio that's online), followed by what reads like a personal appeal for why the reader would want one ("it is nowadays essential", "profit from the conveniences"). Others have removed the link to a specific portfolio site that had originally been given, but it still reads like an exhortation rather than a beyond-dictionary reference article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge/redirect I am the original de-PRODder. The topic is notable as shown for example by its coverage in numerous books. All the other problems indicated by nominator are basically cleanup, and deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, as clarified by our deletion policy. The article needs expansion and help, not deletion. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC) - Tweaked !vote due to BobCummings find below. Looks like they're the same (or very similar) concepts. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the main issue is distinguishing "Online Portfolio" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_portfolio Bob Cummings (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I will tweak my !vote accordingly.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Electronic portfolio. I can't tell the difference. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 22 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mansfield[edit]

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

Run of the mill law firm. Nothing out of the ordinary indicated in the article or found in online searches. The significance of the "Law Society Excellence Award" seems somewhat minor, and other than a brief blurb in Law Society Gazette, seems only to be noticed in the firm's own press releases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious puff piece. No wikilinks. Nothing notable. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia, Guardian) I am finding nothing that would indicate this is anything more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the "how to" guides are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 21 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Darryl Mack[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines. Single (weak) cite discusses the subject's work, remainder of cites are to examples. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent sources about Mack. The Edge is a magazine for which Mack has done work, it's not an independent source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete - but if it is kept, the whole lead needs to be blown up because it has several errors. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 15 October 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 Minor party. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe party[edit]

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

Unsourced since December 2009. (Also contains OR.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Political party and pick up a source supporting this dictionary definition on the way. Each individual fringe party should have its own article, if notable of course. A List of fringe parties is possible, but probably not worth the headaches involved in establishing that something is really a fringe party. Topics along the lines of "The Nature of Fringe Parties", "The Role of Fringe Parties", or "The History of Fringe Parties" would be great as scholarly articles or even books, but too much WP:OR for an encyclopedia.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by OP: Thanks. We do have a List of political parties in the United States#Minor political parties, and I recommend that we leave it at that. (Indeed, this is just the US listing.) Also, I quite agree that seeking to produce a list of fringe parties is fraught with NPOV difficulties. The major parties won't be concerned, but the various minor parties may jockey to get rival minor parties out of the "minor list" and into the fringe list. Also, we'd produce an oxymoron. By "definition" a fringe party is not notable, so no party could have an article. ~~(Indeed, I don't see how a redirect for fringe party could work.)~~ Upon reflection, perhaps a redirect to Minor party is appropriate. If editors agree, I'll do a WP:BLAR. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)17:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. There's really very little here right now. However, this is a topic with a great deal of currency in political science publications. Specific fringe parties and the concept of fringe parties in general have received significant attention in scholarly journals, examining everything from the impact on specific elections, to the process by which parties may transition from fringe to more mainstream status, to the motivations of voters who continue to support fringe parties with no evident electoral chances. This is a topic that could support a well-researched article that need not resort to original research. Unfortunately, what we have here ... isn't that article. Or, really, an article. As to whether the best outcome is to retain what we have at this title in the hopes of encouraging development, or redirect to political party or minor party? I'm neutral. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minor party which is a polite term for 'fringe party'. This is certainly an entirely notable concept. Fringe party can be defined from the second paragraph of here that has been published in a highly respected political encyclopaedia. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of argument, I'll note that the terms are not considered equivalent in all political systems or by all scholars, but that is probably the preferred redirect target if we don't keep an article here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minor party, albeit far from ideal as well. --Soman (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minor party. Like others have said, it's not perfect; however, it works for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1 - withdrawn by nominator with no opposing !votes. (As a note, can people please say "keep" instead of "strong oppose"? The latter borks the AfD Closure Stats tool.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linux From Scratch[edit]

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

The Linux From Scratch article relies on primary sources entirely, so no WP:RS establishes the articles notability, see WP:N, and so this article violates the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - see comments by User:Guy Macon and WP:SK (Speedy Keep #1). Also the overwhelming consesus is to keep this article. AadaamS (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. WP:GNG doesn't say what you think it says. It says that and article should be deleted if it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In cases where the topic has received significant coverage but doen't cite them, the proper response is to add them or at least tag it so others will add them. LFS has a book about it on Wikibooks[32] and on Amazon,[33] a review of said book at pactpub.[34] an article about it in maximum PC[35] and another article in LWN.[36] That took me about two minutes... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for lacking secondary sources about 24 hours before nominating it for deletion, see Linux From Scratch: Revision history. Should I have waited longer? If it only took 2 minutes I'm surprised that nobody bothered to add those references to the article already. I too googled "Linux From Scratch" and as I only found trade magazines I nominated it in the belief that reviews in trade mags, although reliable, are not enough to prove notability. AadaamS (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment – I think you should have waited a little longer :-), but its really hard to find refereces, even for trivial sentence. But Im not a friend of the search engines anymore. Btw. the backlog for Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability is 58,615.... Christian75 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have other articles that I have tagged for notability and they have been like that for months and nobody does anything about it. The response I get every time is "I have multiple sources to show this article is notable and I have the time to stop the article from being deleted but I don't have the time to improve the article". It's bewildering that people who care about keeping an article and take hours to argue about why it shouldn't be deleted don't care at all about spending 5 minutes to improve its quality as long as it stays undeleted. Still I take your hint, 58 000 articles points to a quality problem in Wikipedia that I have no chance at fixing. AadaamS (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have the right give orders to other editors concerning which of those 58,000 articles they work on first. In the time you have spent arguing this, you could have fixed the article, using the references provided to you on this talk page. WP:SOFIXIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to the subject of this discussion, whether to keep this article. The consensus is clearly yes. So I will withdraw this AfD. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Apologies if I haven't followed the proper guidelines for posting in this deletion discussion. I don't edit articles often, but this is important. The article may need more sources, but it definitely doesn't deserve to be deleted. Linux from Scratch is very well known in the Linux community, and installing it is something of a right of passage. The reason it may not have received many reviews is explained well in Season 20, Episode 5 of the Linux Action Show.[37] Bryan Lunduke says, "It's very difficult to review a distribution like [Arch Linux]. It's kind of like reviewing Linux from Scratch. You can't really review that because it's just Linux, and it's just whatever it is at that moment." Lunduke is saying here that most distributions of Linux are defined by their release cycle. It makes sense to review Ubuntu 13.04 or Debian 6, because they're well-defined distributions released at a particular time. In contrast, distributions such as Arch Linux, Gentoo, and Linux from Scratch are harder to review, because they have no release cycle. However, that in no way diminishes their importance, and Linux from Scratch's page no more deserves to be deleted than the pages for Arch or Gentoo, neither of which have been flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letshaveanadventure (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yes the article needs more sources and if you have them, please add them to the article to improve its quality. Keeping poor quality articles does nothing for the accuracy of this encyclopedia. AadaamS (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment as someone pointed out below, the article was started in 2003 and it it is highly unlikely this article will ever be cleaned up if 10 years is not enough time to do so. Although you are correct that poor quality is no argument for deletion, a lack of notability is and in this case when I wrote quality I meant "this article lacking even one WP:RS", there are indeed different varieties of quality issues but notability is one that cannot and should not be ignored. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't say what you think they say. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a book, linux distribution and a website. Sources include:

Building Embedded Linux Systems, pg. 194
Linux Appliance Design: A Hands-on Guide to Building Linux Appliances pg. 342
Linux headless with PC Engines ALIX pg. 41
There are dozens more like this on Google Books. Well known, old and established Linux distribution that has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Feel free to add these sources to the article, that will improve its quality and avoid future AfD. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Oppose I concur with all those above in opposition and if for no other reason than it seems quite late to propose for an article begun March 2003. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there's no finite prescription time. I see it the other way around, if the article is no better than this after 10 years I don't see why it should be kept. Meanwhile editors have found several WP:RS but have yet to add them to the article. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which says:

Examples [of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: ... Delete. It's not referenced properly. ... In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these sections in the guidelines. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 16 October 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 American Buddhist Society and Fellowship, Inc.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ernest Dickhoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as this particular person does not seem to have received any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE ufology community and a rather simple entry in an encyclopedia of cults. More is certainly needed to establish his notability. jps (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Unable to find reliable sources enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Buddhist Society and Fellowship, Inc., the organisation he founded (which needs expansion badly, but that's another ball o' wax and it's very likely to be notable, I'd think). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Collyns[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as this particular person does not seem to have received any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE ancient astronaut believers community. The only moderate claim to notability I could find was that David Hatcher Childress mentioned the author in a book (though I think the textual claim that "Collyns[sic] theories have influenced the work of the writer David Hatcher Childress." is going a bit beyond the one-off mention. In any case, a fringe proponent mentioning another fringe proponent does not satisfy our notability requirements. jps (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find this reliable source:

Weiner, Paula J. LJ: Library Journal. 4/1/1976, Vol. 101 Issue 7, p906. The review opens: "This poorly written and unimpressive book..", gets worse (serious criticism that should be in the Wikipedia article), and ends with "Buy only if your library patrons demand this book."

There was also a review in The Bookseller but I can't find it. Presume it's probably along the same lines as LJ. If substantial new sources are found I might change position but even the article creator could not find more than two reliable sources from the 1970s. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Insufficient reliable third-party references. I would also be concerned that this article was created by a user whose editing history seems to be of minimal constructive worth. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ancient astronauts, where the author is listed in the bibliography as a proponent of the theory; redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shit bag[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page with two entries that can conceivably be called by this name. The problem is neither linked article uses this term and shouldn't use the term since it isn't a common name for the item. The Disambiguation guideline describes entries that should not be included. One of the items that should not be included are entries that do not include the term being disambiguated. Since neither of the entries are included on the linked pages both should be removed. We would then have an empty page therefore this page should be deleted. GB fan 12:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete agree totally with above. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also in agreement. Roborule (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quasi-vandalism, obvious troll. Not a proper disambiguation page, in that neither of these items uses "shit bag" as a common name. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A disambiguation page that points to articles that don't use the very term the page is supposed to disambiguate!? Nothing I shall element the loss of... Pol430 talk to me 16:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Chiumiento[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as this particular person does not seem to have received any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE ufology community. jps (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Called a UFO "expert" who is "known for over 35 years" [38][39][40][41]. Book review Livres hebdo, Issues 708-712. Most sources are in Italian and can be found searching "site:.it" via Google however it's a slog translating through 100s of hits. These are some found by random. Likely many more sources offline since he has been active for 35 years. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. News coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..not impressive in English. See sources and links above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly limited; e.g., the second link in German is to an unrelated subject. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English, but the subject should ideally have an WP article in their language (see Xxanthippe's remark below).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not confined to English sources, online sources, or existence on foreign Wikipedia. Many of the smaller Wikipedia's are chaotic, editors often work here instead or addition to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing in Italian is enough to pass GNG, per links above and some assertions of notability in those sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we wait until there is an article in the Italian Wikipedia. Such would indicate his notability in his own culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

In this case since there are sources we probably should judge based on the sources and WP:GNG rather than the heuristic of existence on Italian Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provide above are inadequate for Wikipedia. At best they mention him in passing. One is a dead link. Again, if he is not notable enough for the Italian Wikipedia he is unlikely to be so for the English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unless there was a previous AfD, not much should be concluded about a missing topic on a foreign Wiki. There are structural reasons why we often see articles created on the English but not native country Wikis. For example some of the smaller Wikis are chaotic, run by cliques and whim, so editors end up here with more constitutional and orderly processes in place. I know that is the case in Poland for example (rumored anyway), but don't know about Italy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources presented: [42] is credulous coverage of a conference. I'd also be curious to see someone try and squeeze more than a sentence out of that in an article. [43] minimal coverage, not sure what one would use. [44] also passing coverage. [45] ([46]) is also creduluous in its coverage. None have the capacity to provide any encyclopedic content on this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources are reliable, if scant mention, and one is a book review per AUTHOR #3. I suspect more sourcing is out there in Italian, if anyone wants to help to look. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:25, 22 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Chalker[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Not noticed outside of the WP:FRINGE ufology community. jps (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multi book reviews) and WP:GNG. Does appear to be recognized outside fringe sources. Only UFO researcher given access to Australian government UFO files (verified in reliable sources below).

"Bill Chalker, the Aussie X-Files agent who says the aliens have landed", The Daily Telegraph, March 25, 2010
Chalker, Bill. Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence for Alien Abductions.(Brief Article)(Book Review) Booklist, v.101, no.21, 2005 July, p.1880
"Australia loses UFO documents", UPI NewsTrack, 2011 June 9. Quote by Chalker as UFO expert.
"Up-to-date aliens grey not green, experts tell UFO fans.", Asia Africa Intelligence Wire (Financial Times), 2002 August 5. Quote by Chalker as UFO expert.

I only did a cursory search of Google and NLA Trove for these. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources from InfoTrac. Some book reviews, others "expert quoted" in news story about UFO incidents.

"UFOs leaving traces UFOs leaving traces." Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate (New South Wales, Australia). (May 20, 2010) News: p14
"Space oddity." Hills Shire Times (New South Wales, Australia). (May 11, 2010) News: p1.
"UFO sighting probed." Macarthur Chronicle (New South Wales, Australia). (Mar. 30, 2010) News: p7.
"Division over UFOs." mX Sydney (New South Wales, Australia). (Mar. 24, 2010) News: p5.
"Close encounters." The Sun-Herald (Sydney, Australia). (Feb. 21, 2010) News: p5.
"Spike", Sydney Morning Herald, 04/24/2001
"THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE." Daily Telegraph (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia). (July 20, 1996) Regional News: p034
"Revealed: SA's alien spaceship secrets; New book tells of; our close encounters." The Sunday Mail (Adelaide, South Australia, Australia). (July 21, 1996) News: p030.
"Family's terror in Nullarbor incident." The Sunday Mail (Adelaide, South Australia, Australia). (July 21, 1996) News: p030. Quote: "Bill Chalker is the only researcher given access to government UFO files."
"UFO FILES." The Sunday Mail (QLD) (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia). (Aug. 11, 1996) News: p068.
"STRANGER THAN FICTION." The Australian (National, Australia). (Dec. 11, 1996) Regional News: pB12.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, according to the Simon & Schuster website (http://authors.simonandschuster.ca/Bill-Chalker/22509695) he has "contributed to such publications as Rolling Stone and Reader's Digest" which seems to indicate that he does have a reputation outside the fringe UFO community. And, for him to have a profile on Simon & Schuster, a pretty big publishing organisation, also seems to inidcate that he has a noteworthy reputation. Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 01:54, 18 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naqvi Orientation[edit]

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

This is a rambling and unencyclopedic personal essay on the general theme of Naqvis, full of original research and synthesis. I bring it here because it is clear that the PROD will be contested, either before or after deletion - the author is arguing against deletion on the talk page, and he and a new SPA have already posted twice at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur. Rambling and unencyclopedic essay. Violates OR, NPOV and Synth. OP wants to push his religious point of view and somehow explain how religion is sustained by biology and mathematics. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay about the editor's personal concept,"Naqvi Orientation" - I can't find sources discussing this , so no evidence of notability but evidence of original research. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above, and as per my PROD nomination. Unencyclopedic in both tone and content. Much of it is unsourced, and several sources cited do not back up the statements for which they are cited. Not even faintly appropriate for Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 12:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent piece of original synthesis and probably fringe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides good information about the Naqvi lineage, since there is insufficient material to support the article the author is at best left with rational estimates. However, the biological cause of deviation stated is Original Research and the author may consider removing that part. -fia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.1.249 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Foulcher[edit]

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

As it is written, it fails WP:ARTIST notability criteria. References are primary (CV), outside of the claim that "in 2010, he was awarded a writer in residency in Paris at the Cité Internationale des Arts", which seems to be the author's major achievement - and hardly one to satisfy notability. Sources need to be added to show he and his work received significant coverage in independent, mainstream works. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Contemporary poets have a hard time of it usually. This one is mentioned in some pretty significant works, if briefly: Bibliography of Australian Literature (Univ. of Queensland Press), The Cambridge History of Australian Literature, Australian Verse: An Oxford Anthology. Book reviews in Southerly: A Review of Australian Literature, Volume 54 (book review of "New and Selected Poems"), Australian Book Review, Issues 187-197 (book review of "The Honeymoon Snap"). The National Library Poetry Competition lasted for one year only 1988 but was a national award, though not a significant one. The ACT Book of the Year Award is more significant and also national. His poetry was set for study on the NSW Higher School Certificate syllabus pg. 17. Overall evidence points to a notable contemporary Australian poet. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent finds; if those would be incorporated into the article it is likely I would withdraw this nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One point worth noting, John Foulcher has been on the secondary school syllabus in various Australian States on and off for over 3 decades now. For very many Australians he is one of the few poets they will read - albeit by coercion - in their lifetime. This provides him a certain mainstream notability not many other contemporary Australian poets can claim. For example he has the dubious honour of having crib note books and essays available online for students, for example Essay Book --Paulknight34b (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources can be found to confirm this, it would certainly contribute to notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Foulcher is a significant Australian poet with over 460 works listed in AustLit and 52 secondary works identified. He is also one of the most frequently searched authors according to AustLit stats. He has also won awards for his work including from the Australia Council. One, significantly, was a grant 'for established writers'. More than enough evidence of notability. Kerry K 00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KteachK (talk • contribs)

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Pritchard[edit]

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

No biographical coverage in mainstream sources - seems to fail WP:BIO/WP:ARTIST over notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Speedy delete as a COPYVIO of http://web.archive.org/web/20110719112612/http://www.verlag-neue-musik.de/verlag/authors.php?language=en&authors_id=535 . I gutted the article so you can see what it looks like without the copyrighted text. Hold off on speedy for 24 hours or so to allow for a total non-copyvio rewrite, if anyone cares to do so using acceptable sources, assuming of course that WP:Notability exists at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Someone expanded what I left behind so it's at least coherent and not a copyvio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications of request to speedy-delete to: Richard Witson, Jimfbleak, and Piotrus. Notification of AFD and request to speedy delete to: Toccatta quarta. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have removed the copyright infringements, speedy deletion is no longer applicable. I recommend deletion nonetheless because of lack of notabiltiy. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per apparent non-notability (I didn't do a search) and actual failure to demonstrate notability with just the sources listed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 15 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delili[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICDEF, WP:N Victor Lucas 05:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a dictionary definition. buff bills 7701 00:54, 16 October 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 Zoya Akhtar. Merging can be performed from article history with proper attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Akhtar's Next[edit]

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

Filming has not begin yet,So no reason to be a an article now. ---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 05:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT, partial MERGE temporarily to director Zoya Akhtar. The nom is somewhat incorrect in stating "no reason to be a an article now", as occasional exceptions are allowed. Point here being that policy tells us the future events may indeed be spoken of if well and properly sourced and not containing original research. We do have the Zoya Akhtar article and the topic of her next film project has been spoken about in multiple independent sources for many months,[47] and it it is clarified at WP:NFF that "until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." The redirect target IS available. If we had no place to reasonable redirect or merge, then a separate article would be worth consideration under both policy and guideline. See examples of similar situations. Allow undeletion or recreation once the beginning of principle filming is confirmed.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Not sure about whether it will be in 2014 or elsewhere.That's the reason i consider it to be deleted. Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could begin filming next week... or begin in 3 years... but I am not suggesting a keep either...only illustrating that under WP:PRESERVE we have ways to handle articles on planned events that meet the WP:GNG (through being discussed in detail in numerous reliable sources), even when they might not (yet) merit their own articles. Which is why I offered a LINK to examples of similar situations that protected histories while still serving to enlighten a reader about a sourcable topic. A wish that it be deleted is to be considered against applicable policy and guideline. 11:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Actually we had deleted some articles previously which had the same scenario and reason.So that's why i considered it but as per your suggestion and links,we need to follow other way.So,please do it.Thanx for that---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 13:07, 19 October 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) 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Sleeping Habits[edit]

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

This article offers little more than what is already present in the main Cat article under Behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay-like, and redundant to info in the Cat article. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, as observed above. Also, if by some miracle this article DOES survive, the title needs an apostrophe after the "s" in Cats. PianoDan (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a sub-literate school essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody wants this userfied for when it's no longer WP:TOOSOON, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack (Canadian newspaper)[edit]

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

Not verifiable that this "newspaper" is anything more than a Tumblr. ISSN brings up no hits, circulation figures are unsourced and Google brings up basically nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I live where this free paper's based, and I've never seen it or heard of it until now. Here are the founders making a pitch for funding on Dragon's Den,[48] which makes it clear they're just starting out. They say they have a whopping $80K in the bank. A little bit of press,[49] but not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability in the article, on the official web site, or on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 17 October 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 When Heaven Burns. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This city is dying, you know?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This still isn't notable for its own article; the last AfD concluded with a 'merge' to When Heaven Burns but that hasn't happened yet (this was only recent) and it would be better deleted. Only 0.7 viewers a day, you know. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to When Heaven Burns per previous AfD result; merge tag from last AfD was removed by an IP with no other edits in this edit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 23 October 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} 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yourstory.in[edit]

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

Another incomplete nomination, this time by User:Jack11777, whose rationale on the talk was "The writings of this article is fairly biased and purely promotional, it mainly focus on company segments and company as whole, content is similar to promotional material. This article does not meet Wikipedia policies, being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. This page fairly biased, promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack11777 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)" It's been cut down substantially since then to remove the promotional language, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG - the sole source is a passing mention (interview with founder or something, that doesn't actually talk about the company) and I can't find anything else on almighty Google (or GNews). Ansh6 6 6 07:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only had the article text been cut down prior to the nomination, but its single most impressive reference - the article in The Hindu - had also been erased. I have restored that; its text indicates potential bases for notability if verified "47,000 registered members and three lakh readers", "'Villgro Journalist of the Year 2010' Award and a NASSCOM award." AllyD (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I saw that in my search but didn't think it passes, since it's about the founder (awards included, the way I read it), not the site itself, so WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play here. I couldn't find any third-party source to verify the count and I'm not sure how that would confer notability in any case. Ansh6 6 6 21:41, 8 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 15 October 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Run 3D[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Merits a mention at Temple Run but not an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 8 October 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) 14:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--84.193.243.31 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)It's an extremely notable game with the author currently working on a widely-publicized game on Vladimir Putin (dontmesswithputin.com) for which coverage also mentions Snowden Run 3D. No other newsgame has gotten as much press as Snowden Run 3D world wide. Snowden Run 3D was even discussed on MSNBC Hard Ball and written about in TV Guide. Looks like it meets WP:NVG, since it has "been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer." Therefore I am voting to keep. Short does not mean unnotable. Jinkinson talk to me 15:11, 15 October 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. NAC. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand Up[edit]

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

Lack of coverage that would warrant meeting WP:GNG. IMDb has only two reviews, by the same author, on what appear to be non-RS websites Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seriously? The first page of my Google search on the title + director gives reviews from The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, and Village Voice. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

STRONG KEEP per WP:NRVE. Looking beyond the unreliable IMDB, it was easy to discover that numerous independent sources have offered commentary and analysis of the film. WP:GNG and WP:NF are soundly met. That the article has not been unimproved is a reason to do it, but not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. And by the by... it was not the least bit difficult to add citations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this improvable little stub is 445 characters (73 words) "readable prose size"... there is sweet DYK waiting here for whomever wishes to expand this. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... being first with the time and inclination, I suppose that "whomever" would be me.

Even though AFD is not meant to force improvements, The article has now been expanded and sourced to serve our readers. Research and improvement were not at all difficult. Now at 4703 characters (764 words) we have a 10x expansion. I have prepped my DYK and have asked the nominator to consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7: web content with no indication of importance. Note that the same content has previously been speedy deleted at Tobuscus Adventures on the same basis. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tobuscus Adventures episodes[edit]

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

Article is unsourced. Notability of subject not established. Appears to be a web-based animated shorts series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry Toby. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as If this were to be deleted then we may aswell cull every barely notable bus article here!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Citybus[edit]

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

Non notable bus company fails WP:CORP (Had prodded but AfD's quicker with decisions). Also Merge may be a better solution? ... Davey2010 T 00:47, 15 October 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted an operator that hasn't done much in its 14 years, but with 10 routes & 48 buses, and a reported acquisition[50] of 30 route[51] Henderson Travel (36 buses @ April 2010)[52] (cites still pending), not insignificant.Mo7838 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued acquisitions isn't a reason for it to be kept, The company has no history whatsoever -

Although merging may be a better solution? Davey2010T 17:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to snow this as the ration of heat vs light is no longer optimal. I have discarded the votes of all spas and gone solely on the views expressed by established editors who appear to have no axe to grind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lilov[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Absolutely non-notable, no significant accomplishments, no coverage in mainstream media. The subject is the same as Valeri Lilov, whose article has been AFD'ed twice now, and is protected from re-creation. It is clear that Lilov is a publicity hound that views Wikipedia as his own personal facebook. Delete, not notable, vanity page. Speiss67 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, International Master not sufficient notability in itself. --Soman (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His notability stems from his role as a teacher on Chess.com and ChessBase. He makes many teaching videos that are quite popular. Note: I despise his videos--his English is poor, he uses Valleyspeak, his explanation of positional concepts lead me to doubt his skill. Nonetheless, my personal distaste and low opinion of his capabilities as a teacher does not alter that fact that he is very active and quite popular. He is notable as a teacher, if not as a player.JStripes (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

was deleted twice before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov.
Usually a player needs to be a grandmaster to have an article and he has the lower title of international master
here is his FIDE page. His rating has been flat for a couple of years, showing that he hasn't improved since the article was deleted the last time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit. Many International Masters have wiki pages, so do some players with no FIDE title at all who are more notable as chess coaches or authors than as players (e.g. Dan Heisman). People find his penchant for self-publicity annoying, I understand that, but provided his page is edited so that it doesn't read like an ad, I don't see why he shouldn't have a page. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is if you actually take a look at the "wall of sources" you notice it's all self promotion, or meaningless links to internet chess servers. There is not a single reliable source in the bunch. Fishface gurl (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit

My suggestion is that the page be kept, however, the content need to be edited to reflect the neutrality expected of Wiki article. I support all the points alluded by MaxBrowne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtweb1 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Rtweb1 (talk · contribs) has no other edits than this AfD vote. --Soman (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-creating an article to get around a protected title is really poor form, and besides that it doesn't really look like he's any more notable now than last time he was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His rating has been pretty much flat for 5 years. In Oct 2008 it was 2433 - now it is 2434. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Talkingfacts (talk · contribs) (with solely 5 edits, 3 of them related to Lilov/Ivanov...) edited the comments of another user. This smells sock-puppeting. Can we get a speedy close and a block of the COI/SPA-account? --Soman (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is talking facts here. I am new to wiki editing. I didn't know how to contribute to the editing discussion. Editing the other person's comments was a mistake due to not knowing how to make a contribution to the conversation. I am certainly not a supporter of Lilov, and I have tried to remove some ridiculous claims, like he is 'renowned' and other ridiculousness. As I am new to editing on here, I only have contributions to two chess personalities. Please do not close or block my account. I have been warned, and I will be more careful about whether I know what I'm doing or not on here. Is there a place where a person can ask questions on how to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingfacts (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common courtesy surely dictates that you don't alter other people's comments, even if Speiss67 was arguably in violation of wikipedia guidelines (see WP:VAIN). MaxBrowne (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already wrote that it was a mistake: I didn't realize I was altering someone else's comments. I edited out the word 'absolutely' because I thought it was an exaggeration; 'absolutely not notable' is not true for just about anything; as soon as we note it, it is notable. And I altered the repetition of that, and the allegation that Lilov was using wiki as his facebook page; which I thought was an issue of interpretation. Again, I didn't realize that I was editing someone's comments, I just thought I was improving some text. Drop it. Talkingfacts (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Just to clarify, I insinuated a block for Chesszorro (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly tried to recreate a fanpage for himself. --Soman (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for an indefinite block of Chesszorro (talk · contribs). Apparently now Lilov (Chesszorro) has been using his platform on "Chess.com" to whip up support for his Wikipedia article and is trying to mobilize his fans to invade Wikipedia to argue for keeping this article. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that explains the sudden appearance of new accounts. Anyhow, that's a clear WP:CANVASS case. --Soman (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is interesting to compare the different wikis. The English wiki has 35 players in Category:Bulgarian chess players, the Bulgarian wiki has 100, the Russian has 54, the German has 27, and the Polish has 67. All of these wikis have excellent chess coverage and I refer to them when writing new articles. It's notable that not a single one of them includes an article on Lilov. So I'm coming around to the view that the article should be deleted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's more notable now than he was during the last AfD, but in the absence of significant competitive results in junior chess or at the Bulgarian championship, I don't think an entry on him is justified. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. MrsHudson (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arguments to keep: Lilov is (subjective opinion) comparably famous to other chess coaches in the chess coaching sites, including the best names on those sites producing videos or DVDs. However it is hard to put this objectively, as many other "famous" coaches would also be eg Grandmasters (which qualifies them for Wiki articles, although they aren't known much or famous for that). He was also one of the leading individuals regarding outing Borislav Ivanov as a cheater (for which there is also a delete discussion, but seems the outcome would be "keep"). On the other hand Lilov's actions show that he is apparently unaware of Wikipedia policies and practices which is an issue by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:FE00:BFFE:2201:0:0:0:300 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is interesting. It sounds like Lilov is trying to get an article about himself on Wikipedia. That is hardly a good argument to keep the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was already suggested by several users, e.g. by Fishface_gurl here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borislav_Ivanov, however user Chesszorro rejects this association below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtytwoplus (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I noticed that some people in this debate relate to me as Valeri Lilov which is false. I can legitimate myself via passport or in some other ways if necessary. I don't even know the man personally, though he is from my country and is very famous locally and on the Internet. I have only updated and added some corrections to his old Wikipedia page which was apperantly deleted when he wasn't so popular in 2010. Since his page has been protected from creation in that year, I have posted the article online using his most common nickname, following a suggestion by a few legit Wikipedia editors. The cheating case involving Borislav Ivanov have nothing to do with this AfD and it is strange that there are so many hateful messages on my talk page from people who are obvious supporters of Ivanov, sending a negative vote here, while they vote 'Keep' on his own AfD. I believe this is not quite according to the Wikipedia rules for neutrality. Once again, I have nothing to do with Lilov and I only created the page after he was officially awarded with the International Master title in October 2013. I would suggest people who come here and comment to leave some solid explanation next to their vote, instead of voting on Borislav Ivanov's AfD right away. Chesszorro (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you made a single edit not related to neither Lilov nor Ivanov? It's highly unlikely that someone not in COI situation would do that. Also, do note the difference in character between the Lilov and Ivanov articles. The Lilov article is promotional, whilst the Ivanov article covers a lot of negative details about the person. If I was Ivanov, I'd like that article deleted. --Soman (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I haven't made other edits, as I believe that most notable Bulgarian chess players already have Wikipedia pages. Eveyone, except Lilov. This is the reason why I made some minor updated to the already existing article after he got the International Master title. If there is someone with more experience, he can add some more references to the Ivanov cheating scandal and other information in press to update Lilov's current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage of article subject in independent, reliable sources. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article deleted twice already, notability not established, no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Credentials as a chess player not sufficient on their own. --SubSeven (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit Valeri Lilov is notable in the context of the Borislav Ivanov cheating scandal. There was/is open "war" between both in the press, youtube, and in the biggest Bulgarian chess and English anti-cheating facebook groups, thus one might argue they are similarly notable in the context of the cheating scandal. Fourtytwoplus (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourtytwoplus (talk · contribs) only one other edit than this AfD vote, concerning a Bulgarian talk show on which Borislav Ivanov was a guest recently. Possible SPI or sockpuppet. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that a respondent not having edits except for a single subject is not proof of COI or sockpuppet. They, like me, could be new to wikiediting; or they could have a very narrow interest, as in the chesszorro person, who claims to have an interest only in Bulgarian chess, which is possible. So I don't think you should be rejecting people's argument's on the slightly paranoid assessment of them as 'possible COI-SPI'. Talkingfacts (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I don't know if my signature got in here so, this is 'talkingfacts'.[reply]
Delete in Strongest Possible Terms. Valeri Lilov is a non-entity, non-notable, fails Wikipedia notability guidelines in any way. His persistent sockpuppetting and campaigning for an article is horrifying and immature. Delete, and block re-creation of every possible permutation of Valeri Lilov's name. Also you should do an SPI on Chesszorro, Talkingfacts, and all the other random "new" editors who have weighed in. The last AFD on Lilov also had multiple confirmed sockpuppets. It's kind of ridiculous that someone that thinks of himself as a master sportsman would engage in such persistent and obvious sockpupetting like a bored 12 year old. What is even worse is he is using Chess.com to encourage vandalism and drive-by voting here. Bulgarian Chess Dude (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote stricken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do an SPI on me in a heartbeat. I am on the Ivanov Afd comments page as putting forward the strongest argument for keeping the Ivanov page. Some COI sockpuppet I am!! Some dupe of Lilov I am!!Talkingfacts (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This so-called 'Bulgarian Chess Dude' is a "random new editor" to quote him, and a likely sockpuppet, with no edit history, and troll vitriole, as noted below by Rtweb1. Talkingfacts (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete, Non notable. Salt re-creation. Thomas Hauser41 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The amount of strong negative emotion and obsession against the creation of the Lilov page is quite interesting to observe. Any person making an attempt to present a sober and objective view is attacked and called names. A characteristic typical of trolls. Of all the negative votes, none is sound compelling reason why the page should be completely deleted. Just for information, my account is not 2 days or 2 months old on Wiki, and I am a long standing Wiki Foundation Donor. An even more disappointing observation is the type of bias displayed by people who are supposed to be withholding the values that Wikipedia stand for. The Wiki Foundation Director Sue Gardner says: "Wikipedia isn't meant to advance somebody's PR agenda or push a particular ideology, or persuade you to believe something that is not true." None of the review comments subscribe to that ethos - moreso if you observe certain interesting coincidences.--Rtweb1 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. What part of "No significant coverage of article subject in independent, reliable sources" is too hard for you to understand? Do you want it translated into Bulgarian? Come back when you are a grandmaster, then you can have an article on here. Since having a Wikipedia article seems to be your main preoccupation in life (next to Borislav Ivanov), that should give you some motivation to make GM, right? Fishface gurl (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Fishface gurl. Firstly, let me clarify - I am not Bulgarian, therefore, you do not need to translate anything to Bulgarian for me. I speak Afrikaans. Your arguments are lacking in content and balance. If you, Fishface gurl, cared so much about "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources"; how about all the other International masters who have little info on their pages (examples: [[53]], [[54]], etc.).--Rtweb1 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rtweb1 user contributions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been edited down to verifiable claims, dead links removed etc and it's looking rather skinny now. Maybe IM title and positive reviews of his DVD's on the credible chesscafe website are enough to establish notability? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Probably not, but we'll see. It will furthermore be interesting to see how long it takes the Lilov sockpuppet army to re-add several thousand bytes of puffery to the article. Fishface gurl (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not impressed with the behaviour of the participants on either side of the debate. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requirement of WP:GNG. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I move for an early close of this. The consensus is clear, Delete. Fishface gurl (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep: I get the impression that he could be considered notable in chess circles (mainly because of his teaching credentials and the various videos posted on chessbase) and seems to be improving as a player as well (it's not out of the question that he could attain a GM norm). In my opinion Lilov could be considered a borderline case. His exact involvement in the Borislav Ivanov saga needs to be clarified. I am not sure whether the creator of his article is in a conflict of interest situation due to a close association with Lilov, but this may be worth looking into.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.7.102 (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it reads much more soberly now; better, in my opinion. Thank you MaxBrowne.

I hesitate to add to his bio his involvement in the Ivanov scandal, because I have no way of evaluating how important his videos about Ivanov's cheating are to the scandal itself. His videos about Ivanov are embedded in a chessbase news article, and are possibly embedded there by chessbase to help market his instructional videos which are published and sold by chessbase. Lilov's videos about Ivanov have certainly played a role in popularizing the scandal via youtube, and they are interesting and instructive, but I don't think they have brought any new evidence into the discussion of Ivanov's cheating. In my humble opinion, I think Lilov's videos about Ivanov's cheating are derivative , i.e. based on the work of others. (and note, I differentiate between his videos about Ivanov's cheating, which I have seen, and his commercial instructional videos, which people say good things about on chess.com, but as I have not purchased any I have no comment about them nor any way of evaluating them. Also, in and of itself, I don't think having a few instructional videos for sale makes a chess professional notable. However, perhaps the entire corpus of his work including his recent attainment of IM status and his secondary role in the Ivanov scandal, makes him notable, though not exceptional.).

Lilov has come into the public eye as a result of his marketing of his instructional videos, by way of his instructional material on chess.com, by way of chessbase marketing his videos, and by way of his videos popularizing the Ivanov scandal. He has not come into the public eye (except perhaps in Bulgaria, which I have no way of evaluating) as a result of his professional chessplaying which, in and of itself, is not a reason to delete his bio.

My sense is that if his bio is determined to be notable, then perhaps the fact that he played a secondary role in the Ivanov scandal may be included in his bio. I will leave it up to the rest of the wiki community to ascertain whether Lilov's videos analyzing Ivanov's cheating add to his notability, and/or whether they should be included in his bio. Sorry for the long-windedness. I hope this helps.Talkingfacts (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Ok, very well said. So, go to where this information may belong better, on the Borislav Ivanov page. Enter in a sentence on that page to the effect that "Val Tiger Lilov has done a few Youtube videos concerning the Ivanov scandal." Cite whatever sources you can find. Good luck with that. Fishface gurl (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go. http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009251/a-game-of-chicken-ivanov-rides-again-230313.aspx and http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/more-on-the-alleged-cheating-case-at-the-zadar-open. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Fishfacegurl, I'd rather not touch either of those pages for the time being; I'd rather let the more experienced editors work on the text of the bios while their inclusion is being disputed, and I'll leave my comments here on the talk pages. I've already made one blooper in the past few days (edited someone else's comments by mistake, looking like vandalism) and I'm still a bit reluctant to get back into the thick of it with editing actual text. Talkingfacts (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The ChessBase News link has the following author's credit: "Alex Karaivanov is the manager of FM Valeri Lilov and has managed his coaching career and chess training business for the past six years. He is also involve in producing Valeri Lilov's ChessBase DVDs.". Is there any coverage that is a 3rd party source and isn't an online chess forum/blog? --Soman (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. News of note: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Sock_and_meat_puppeting_at_AFD Fishface gurl (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Not notable. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fishface gurlfishface gurl has sent me a private message via the wiki messaging service confirming his identity (not a gurl, btw) as an anti-Lilov sock puppet who has been active on chess.com, under at least three separate names, and whose accounts have been closed on chess.com as of this evening. You can take this to heart when you look at fishface gurl's pushy insistence that the issue get "closed immediately" "speedy deletion", and the name calling he was doing. I don't know how to do this, but fishface gurl and his different aliases, which look to include Speiss67, Thomas Hauser41, and Bulgarian Chess Dude. I am quite certain these are one and the same person. Please track or ban or do whatever you can do. There is some suggestion that this person has been banned before, with the name Wiki brahWiki brah, thanks to the help of Toccata quarta Talkingfacts (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You probably need to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Talkingfacts, Thank you for the information you shared with the community about this rude user - Fishface gurl. You have confirmed certain suspicions that were here. At first I thought it is Ivanov's girlfriend, a troll, or some lonely bored pimple-faced teenager looking for attention.--Rtweb1 (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Response. You mean this? Cf. this? It's all public information you posted on the internet, none of this is "private" to you. And why must all this Chess.com drama always spill over to other sites on a regular basis? More importantly, is any of this whinging going to make Lilov any more notable re: reliable sources? Fishface gurl (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseNope, none of that was public, that was private message you sent to me, which outs you, as you full-well know. And why is this important? You are in violation of the proud principles on which wikipedia was founded, and which has an army of volunteers working to make it work, and I have just become one of their volunteers . I recruited myself to defend wikipedia from the likes of you.Talkingfacts (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I see, interesting rhetoric. In any case, as a noble Wikipedian volunteer, you should know that your "talk page" where I sent you that message, here User_talk:Talkingfacts is public. It's not a "private" message, nor is your raving about putting the chess set into production on that other site you came from. Welcome to Wikipedia though. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Welcome to civic minded democracy, common decency, and sociability. It, like chess, will take committment and much practice. Talkingfacts (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, well, we're all glad to have you here on Wikipedia. If you are interested in contributing to AFD discussions like this you should read WP:GNG and its sub pages as well as WP:RS and WP:V. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works you can go to WP:RD/M (reference desk/miscellany) or WP:VPP (Village Pump/Policy). There are very helpful people here that will be glad to help. Or, you can edit articles. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:20, 20 October 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.