< 18 April	20 April >

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) 08:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Osuagwu[edit]

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

Actress with no indication of notability only appearing in 1 TV programme, Google results brings up Questions, As such I suggest perhaps merging/redirecting to either M.I. High or List of M.I. High characters#Past. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. — Wylie pedia 08:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles to date to not meet WP:ENT, and I'm not finding coverage to show that WP:GNG can be met. I'm not opposed to a redirect to the show's character page. Gongshow talk 07:32, 25 April 2014 (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. This is not a notable person. While there is a set of newspaper articles linked that mention him, there is no significant discussion of the person or their work. Being a professor is by itself not a reason for notability, and being an administrator or adjunct faculty member even less so. What we have is a person with a job and a number of social functions, mentioned in the papers, but piling up those mentions that do not discuss the topic in any depth does not add up to encyclopedic notability, as DGG, Candleabracabra, and David Eppstein point out. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Cram[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:PROF or anything else--I cannot even decipher from the references what subject he was a professor of. the references are pure PR for his projects. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Even if not, no notability found and only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This looks hoaxy. Without strong references, no reason to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you think this is a hoax? This article cites a variety of newspaper articles, and all of them discuss Roger Cram. They are well-established newspapers published in a variety of locations, and many of the articles are accessible online. None of them are primary sources; they are not public relations pieces. Cram is an established expert on the Tuskegee Airmen and he lectures on this subject often. He is a prominent member of the Hiram, Ohio community and has received much publicity from his administration of an organization that performs random acts of kindness. I have added an additional six newspaper articles as sources. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The links to news articles seem to all be broken or lead to unrelated materials. It does look like a hoax indeed.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not broken; you simply need a valid login. I don't understand how people can think that this article is a hoax. Isn't anyone willing to look up the newspaper articles through their local library? These are reputable newspapers with no relation to each other all discussing the same person. Surely, they didn't all conspire together to deceive the world about the existence of a Tuskegee Airmen scholar. Neelix (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is a hoax — searching hiram.edu for his name yields plenty of hits — but that's not the same as finding evidence of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just fixed 9 of the sources, now freely viewable. Only 2 or 3 are still unviewable offline. The article is sufficient for WP:GNG. I hope the Delete votes above will revisit now that a large number of new sources have been added. Those sources include:

John P. Meyer (November 15, 2007). "Movie review and premiere event coverage: Flying for Freedom". Pegasus News. Archived from the original on January 7, 2008. Retrieved July 31, 2013.
"Anonymous good deeds still honor vet killed in Gulf War". The Bryan Times. April 21, 2003. p. 8.
Paula Schleis (March 8, 2011). "Hiram residents argue against development efforts". Akron Beacon Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2014.
"Coast Guard Auxiliary hands out awards". Star-News. February 5, 2003. p. 4.
Jerome Pohlen (2004). Oddball Ohio: A Guide to Some Really Strange Places. Chicago Review Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 1569762341.
Phil Keoghan (2006). No Opportunity Wasted: Creating a Life List. Rodale, Inc. p. 208. ISBN 1609616669.
Barb Galbincea (May 25, 2003). "Pilot Lives On in Acts of Kindness: "Pulling a Reichle" is an Anonymous Mission for an Unforgettable Man". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved April 12, 2014. (Offline)
Tim Bucey (May 6, 2004). "Greenon grad to give NYC a good morning". Cox Communications. Retrieved April 12, 2014. (Offline)
Ryan E. Smith (January 18, 2009). "Toledo Tuskegee airman savors symbolism of inauguration". The Blade. Retrieved April 12, 2014.
"Tuskegee University to honor Tuskegee Airmen at convocation". The Tuskegee News. February 23, 2006. p. A2.
"Professor Challenges Airmen to Work with Vision, Compassion". Targeted News Service. March 9, 2010. Retrieved April 12, 2014.
"York U grad students launch Alliance Against Modern Slavery". Exchange Magazine. January 26, 2011. Retrieved July 20, 2013.

-- GreenC 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC and WP:HEY. While he probably fails the Prof test, I'd say he passes WP:GNG, based on the good sourcing. He's a bit of an odd bird, no? Bearian (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to reconsider. I consider the article still promotional & of very borderline notability : the last sentence relies on what notable people also talked at an occasion he did; most of the article is about what other people did; the references are basically PR notices about his individual talks--one does not get notable by giving a dozen public speeches, unless there is much more than local reporting. One does not even get notable if the talks are about a famous group of people. There is still no information about what he is a professor of -- the relevant reference just shows he was called Professor twice in a column in a local online newspaper. I'd be very glad to see some evidence of notability , but this is just ILIKEHIM. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG .. AfD is a topic-level not content-level discussion. If there is bad content, lets remove it. The notability of the topic is independent of the article. -- GreenC 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The updated article has even more local newspapers and other such marginal sources. What it doesn't have is sources that better demonstrate notability to me. My delete opinion from above hasn't changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Local sources" are OK, so long as they are not all from the same location, this one has diverse locations. Per our rules-based criteria at GNG, a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You are not obligated to agree with GNG (IAR), so I guess the question is why should we make a special exception and ignore GNG in this case. It's unclear what is meant by "marginal sources", they all appear to be reliable published news sources. -- GreenC 15:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. None of the cites are about him, they are about other subjects and he gets noted. None of his career accomplishments meet any objective Wikipedia criteria warranting an article. But he does seem like a nice person, and for that I applaud him! Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Cram is obviously not a hoax and IMHO is "wikipediable" as the current article exists (at least under WP:GNG if nothing else). Not that this satisfies notoriety requirements in and of itself, Mr. Cram is an adjunct faculty member affiliated with Hiram College [1], has an office in Hinsdale Hall, and has taught (and for all I know is still teaching) numerous courses at Hiram[2]. I might also mention that the Tuskegee Airmen article is rated B-class (Mid-importance) in WikiProject African diaspora. Perhaps Mr. Cram, who is an acknowledged authority in this area, might find additional notoriety along this line. Not to mention his efforts on behalf of SSSSH and Hal Reichle [3]. JimScott (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passing GNG does not automatically entitle one to an article, though I was ignorant enough to argue the contrary in my first few months here. We are entitled to make our own judgement over whether what is reported is significant enough for an encyclopedia. The typical human interest stories about unusual people are the sort of thing which fills up newspapers, but should not be filling up encyclopedias.(We have reasonably accepted a few when there has really been major national coverage; we have unreasonably sometimes accepted a few others.About half the sources above are not about him. but about the Tuskegee Airman, and merely mention him. Being an adjunct faculty member is not a distinction--its normally a hopefully temporary part time job, but sometimes a way of letting someone non-academic in profession teach a course in their specialty--and sometimes a mere courtesy, But there is indeed no reason to think this a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by your interpretation of WP:GNG. The guideline states that, if a subject meets the general notability criteria, that subject "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Neelix (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline goes on to say:

* "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

This is that "more in-depth discussion". JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this discussion is a valid one to be having. I haven't seen anyone making the argument that this article violates what Wikipedia is not. The arguments for deleting this article have been either hoax-based or notability-based, and I think we have established at this point that the article is not a hoax and that it meets the notability guidelines. You are certainly welcome to introduce novel reasons for deleting the article if you believe that it violates what Wikipedia is not. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How has notability been established? Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9 sources have been posted above. If you agree that is enough is a matter of personal opinion but your suggestion that there are no sources is inaccurate. -- GreenC 16:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them have substantial coverage of this subject? If so which ones? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (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 move to Draft:Muslim women in literature. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women in literature[edit]

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

Surely a notable topic, but as it stands this article is a collection of unsourced claims ("crucial roles") and examples from a single fictional work, the stories of One Thousand and One Nights. I believe WP:STARTOVER applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the starting over suggestion would be appropriate if this were a large article full of such unsourced claims, this seems to be a stub consisting of one unsourced claim. Starting over seems kind of redundant when the entire text could just be deleted and then rewritten with sources - at least to the level of a stub but with sources - in five minutes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying basically is deleting and starting over or blanking and starting over are almost the same thing, hence the weak keep vote. I don't think it would be a big deal either way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact AfD is the only option for this article, and then we can start to create another article like it, because this one doesn't seem an islamic article. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 17:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An islamic article? Excuse me? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - this clearly is not yet ready for prime time, but has some potential. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy seems like a good option, I agree with Bearian. Seems to be a notable topic that can be improved upon. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hellbenders (series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and every other notability guideline quite spectacularly, with no independent coverage whatsoever in the article (I also couldn't find any by googling). Jinkinson talk to me 20:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it appears to have no notability, as above. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordman97 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This *might* be speedyable under WP:A7. It's not like the series has any true claim to notability, as none of their claims seem to have been covered in any reliable sources that are independent of the group themselves. The sources are either primary or in places that aren't really considered to be reliable to really show that the claims are true. (IE, that they were only declined by CN because of its similarity to another work already on the air.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As said above, no real claim to notability. Seems to be sourced mainly by self-published sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherko Kareem[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.

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 ~~(or keep)~~. It may be beneficial to both articles if this is integrated into the main Tor article. Shii (tock) 17:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Browser Bundle[edit]

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

Poorly referenced and seems to be written in a promotional manner M.Jormungand (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm weird I thought April fools already passed long time ago, okay on serious note your reasoning is kind-of-biased, then how about other editors opinion? You just using opinion as basing for this nom for deletion, more rather you didn't point out why it's seems like a promotional page, do not use word "seems" when you nominating for deletion, it shows you are unsure about this nomination, means you have weak basis for this nomination, also the explanation inside the article is good enough for me, from notability it has considerable amount or result on internet, I seriously don't know what other reason for this deletion other than your baseless opinion.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect I am a contributor to the article, and it isn't promotional in the slightest. We can either expand upon it (which would not be very hard) or create a new section for it at Tor (anonymity network). What really needs to be done is to delete two articles that currently redirect to Tor Browser Bundle, which are PortableTor and Portable Tor. 92.78.234.161 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete or redirect to Tor (anonymity network). Two reasons that seem to make this a pretty cut and dry decision:
1. When you go to download Tor from the official site, what you download by default IS Tor Browser Bundle.
2. The ENTIRE article duplicates content available at Tor (anonymity network) (so nothing to merge). Not only does the Tor article have a near copy of the Bundle article's lead, but outside of the lead the bundle article doesn't even mention the bundle, instead talking about Tor generally. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there is still a good amount of information that can be added about Tor Browser. The Tor article is going to become quite long, and I think it's going to need to be split into its own article eventually. (I think the same thing about the Tor Project needing its own article eventually.) Why not work on it now as a separate article and save the trouble or merging and then splitting it again? If we redirect to Tor, would you support deleting the Portable Tor and PortableTor articles? 94.222.75.188 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turns up no RS coverage apart from this brief PC World review [4]. The rest of the search results are incidental mentions in articles that are about Tor, download sites, and other non-RS links; these don't establish notability for this software.Dialectric (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments. This article should grow. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I can tell the entirety of the keep arguments are: "it should grow," "there are lots of ghits," and what looks like an ad hominem at the top. Meanwhile there's no further explanation for how this passes the GNG, why this is a separate topic from Tor, why we should keep an article that is entirely duplicate material, or even a suggestion for specific ways it could possibly grow that wouldn't be just at home on the Tor article (i.e. what parts of it could grow that wouldn't make sense to also write at the Tor article, thus continuing the duplication). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's just I hate baseless nom for AfD, he doesn't explain further about why it's should be deleted. line like these "Poorly referenced and seems to be written in a promotional manner" is not helpful, people who comment will left being clueless what they should do or give to comment or to improve the articles, I wish every people who nominating something for deletion give proper and detailed explanation before nominating something for AfD.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still criticizing how preposterous this AfD is without making a single argument for why it should be kept or responding to any of the quite obvious and routine reasons for deletion. Saying there's Just because it isn't "promotional" doesn't mean it should be kept. Is the entirety of your argument resting on the desire to punish what you see as a procedural misstep? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not desire I just don't want this kind of things happen again, I've been tagging AfD MfD on hundreds wikis and I can't accept en.wp to be as lower as small wikis, we should follow procedure, and reject any bad request. Also for "promotional" it's depend on how people sees them, for me it's not even promotional.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so to clarify you don't have a reason to keep other than that the nominator didn't do a good job, and won't be responding to any of the other reasons for deletion other than the claim that it's "promotional?" --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the Tor article containing fully-developed information on the Tor Browser would be too long. Explaining Tor Browser's security improvements over basic Firefox should be in a Tor Browser article, but not necessarily a Tor article. 94.222.74.36 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you how you perceive my comment, not that it gonna change anything, administrator will decide this consensus.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or Merge I agree with user: Rhododendrite. This article shouldn't stand alone and is better merged Sic Semper Tyrannis82 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2014 (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} 04:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to pass the General notability guideline due to these reliable sources mentioning the topic at length.

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be renamed Tor Browser as per Change Tor Browser Bundle to Tor Browser in package strings, download pages, and docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.103.2 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tor (anonymity network): separate notability of the browser is highly questionable. This browser basicly is Firefox with security fixes, distributed as official way to access Tor. Even if there was enough material to satisfy WP:GNG, there is definitely not enough subject to cover. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree That's not only Firefox fork, its bundled with a complete version of Tor client. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't exactly Firefox fork – it is custom build of one of the Firefox official flavors, bundled with Tor button extension and Tor client. A single paragraph is sufficient to provide complete encyclopedic coverage. Probably another one for reception, albeit currently there isn't much worth mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. No notability. Tor is notable. Firefox is notable. A fork of Firefox which implements Tor is not. At best, deserves a short mention in Tor, and a redirect there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But... just take a look at the Category:Web browsers based on Firefox, besides - Tor Browser implements many other things like NoScript, HTTPS Everywhere... --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basicly WP:ALLORNOTHING. FWIW most articles in that category probably should also be merged or deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Merge into Tor article. While it does achieve the GNG, it does so barely, and any additions to the browser will ultimately be backed up into the Tor article anywho. Tutelary (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the Tor Browser can be encapsulated in the Tor article. Please see the design document. The Tor community takes measures to help blocked people get access to Tor Browser. The Tor Project takes measures to help users ensure Tor Browser integrity. There is also the software history to consider. All of this would clutter the Tor main article. 92.78.113.183 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one short paragraph (all it takes to cover TBB in encyclopedic manner) won't clutter anything. Given that TBB is the default download of Tor project, it can't possibly clutter. Given that beyond Onion router itself the package only contains tuned and bugfixed Firefox with pre-loaded extention, this paragraph wouldn't even be large enough to influence the article flow in significant way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow why a list of all the things the Tor Project does with a browser an argument against including the browser in the Tor Project article. What people are doing is helping people to get access to Tor, not the Tor Browser. What if they stopped development of the Tor Browser last week (or tomorrow) and embraced some new "Tor Chrome Private" based on Chrome? What if the Tor Browser were abandoned by its community? Would it still be notable? These reasons based on the Tor community's involvement with the Tor Browser wouldn't even apply any longer. So would the mere fact that The Tor Project had at one point encouraged use of this browser be justification for a stand-alone article? Seems like delete would be pretty uncontroversial at that point because notability is not temporary. It's software developed by the Tor community that serves only to connect people to Tor and would be forgotten if the Tor community decided another browser were better. Thus even if there's press coverage enough to say this is notable, these reasons are exactly why notability itself doesn't justify a stand-alone article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that there is much more to Tor Browser than people here are implying, certainly more than a paragraph. The design and history alone would make a nice article. Notability isn't even a question. Just because Tor Browser is the recommended implementation for most people does not make it synonymous with Tor. Tor is a client as well as a network, and a complex topic. Most of the Tor Project stuff should be split into its own article too. 92.78.113.183 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (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. CSD§G5: creation by blocked user in violation of the block, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Sciences[edit]

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

Company only notable for the one drug it produces. Article re-created on April 6 by suspected-but-not-proven sockpuppet of a banned user (see article talk page, page history, page logs, and user page of the now-blocked editor, and archive of the SPI listed on that user page). References are wholly inadequate to demonstrate notability. Due to repeated re-creation I recommend Deletion with the creation of a protected redirect pointing to the drug the company makes, Zeuterin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. I couldn't find enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

New Strides in Spaying and Neutering. The New York Times.
Just a li’l pinch: New zinc injection Zeuterin offers new way to neuter dogs without surgery. NY Daily News.
Drug may eliminate need for male dog surgery . The Advocate.
New canine sterilization shot replaces surgery. Fox5 News.
Injection provides additional hope for reducing stray dog population. Fox44 News.
Local veterinarians certified to perform 'zeutering,' non-surgical dog neutering. The Times Picayune.
Ark Sciences Releases Canine Sterilization Drug. Veterinary Practice News.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references you are citing pretty firmly establish the notability of the drug Zeuterin. Unfortunately they mention the company only in passing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 19 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Is Able, Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability fails WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and the company is not even cited in this source. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Food Logistics has an unordered list, so this could be the 85th biggest logistics firm the food industry, for all we know. See WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Also, the creator of this page asked a question at the teahouse a few days ago where she said that she created the page as ordered by her boss at Kane Is Able. So there's that. Bali88 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 18:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This article is incredibly biased and sounds as if it's attempting to persuade to the reader that they are an excellent company. All sources are biased for obvious reasons. The article contains too few opinions, and that is before I saw the ((COI)) template on it. This article is not for an encyclopedia. This page is an advertisement. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2014 (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 by User:Xoloz as Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria WP:A1, WP:G1. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singhabad Raj[edit]

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

No info anywhere about this place (first I thought it might be a person), also looks like it could just go into another article, really not a article per say either Wgolf (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete-I'm not even 100% sure what they are talking about either to be honest, if someone who knows more about this could come in.

Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have tagged this for speedy delete per A-1 and G-1, lack of context and incoherent gibberish. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I have tagged articles like that before for gibberish someone seems to pull out something saying they were real-also the fact that it is nearly a month old made me think that it must be something if it was never tagged before.

Wgolf (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too have had CSD nominations rejected. It happens. I just try to learn when I make a mistake and I use CSD sparingly. That said we both looked at the article and came to the same conclusion. I think we are on solid ground here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same, I tend to do prod but then some people delete them, its a tough call a lot, well let's see how this pans out. Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:25, 19 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Mirbabayi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Only sources are institutes and papers by the subject, i.e. primary/affiliated. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON (and citations too low) for WP:PROF#C1, and no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start but a long way to go. With GS h-index of 5-too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too little encyclopedic/biographical information available yet - may be recreated in the future when notability is demonstrable. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (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 and Redirect. On the grounds that redirects are cheap. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-National League Futsal Malaysia 2014-2015[edit]

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

This page already exists in a much better written format as National Futsal League Malaysia 2014-15. There is no reason for this version of the page to exist, Snood1205 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely this would end in redirect, at best. Wouldn't it have been simpler just to redirect it than AFD it? Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it being commonly called the "Pro-National League Futsal Malaysia" anywhere. It seems as if the author made up that name to try to create the article. Snood1205 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ah I see. Article exists as National Futsal League Malaysia 2014-15. No basis for this name. Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into existing article. Giant Snowman 09:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - per comments by Nfitz and GS. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect? There's no indication why "Pro-National" was part of the article name, no previous usage of this in other seasons that I see, nor can I see anything on the Internet? Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. We already have an article for it. However why wasn't the article speedied as A10? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - probably no need for this (is it ever actually referred to as "Pro-National League Futsal"?), but redirects are cheap. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence Review[edit]

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

No sourced evidence of the significance of this review despite the unsourced statement that it was significant in the article. The few secondary sources on this review indicate that it didn't have any lasting consequences and none of its recommendations were adopted. Most of the coverage is from the government agencies involved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonably sourced stub on an Australian government policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' Received significant coverage when it was released (the Australian media loves to report on itself). That it didn't have long-term consequences isn't terribly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sydney Morning Herald [5] and the West Australian [6] both described it as the "long awaited" Convergence Review. I think that can be reasonably interpreted as being "significant". And the point to keep in mind is as Nick-D suggested, the review gained significant coverage when it was released.-Keepdry (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, there was significant, if not lasting coverage of the review. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Fisher[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article notes that only professional appearance was for Ayr in 2009 in a Division 2 match. Not only can I not find verification of this (or lack of verification of this after too long of a search ... why is it so hard to find Scottish results from only 4 years ago ...) but more importantly, even if it did happened, the old Division 2 isn't fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Verification of his appearance can be found here, but it's irrelevant as Scottish Division 2 was not fully-professional. Giant Snowman 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DictionaryForMids[edit]

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

The article has been around since 2007 and still has no references. A Google search returned listings for the software with brief descriptions but I was unable to find anything from reliable sources providing significant coverage of the product. SQGibbon (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reviews. All I see are confirmations that it exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I failed to find anything allowing to establish notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article lacking independent reliable sources to establish notability, and a search does not reveal any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (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 snow close and speedy delete as copyvio from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time voyagers: the adventure begins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Subject doesn't meet any of the WP:BKCRIT criteria. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:59, a19 April 2014 (UTC)

Created by a single-purpose account User:Thetimevoyagers, article reads a bit like an advertisement as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: self published, no indication of notability. Ruby Murray 16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article on a self-published book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book, no substantial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Poorly-written promotional rubbish by SPA.TheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (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. Happy to userfy content if anyone can demonstrate notability and wants to try and improve the article. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cigniti[edit]

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

non notable software company. The references are either press releases or disguised press releases, or routing business listings, none of which show notability DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without objection to an article being created that clearly shows that this company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and no objection to temporary userfication or draft-ification at the request of an established editor who declares an intent to write a proper article. Of course, if this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then doing so will, by definition, be impossible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable company. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability meeting WP:ORG not demonstrated or claimed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (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 per WP:A10. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Bullying[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this topic already exists somewhere on Wikipedia (and thus this article could be speedied as A10), but I can't seem to find the article that talks about the same topic. Nevertheless, the term itself is not exactly covered in reliable sources, and the article has some POV issues. Finally, it's unsourced. No prejudice against redirecting or merging this to another article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 - Economic sanctions, re-written as unreferenced POV political essay per WP:SOAPBOX. Ruby Murray 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ruby Murray. It's difficult to imagine a more clear-cut case. There's nothing to merge, but it could conceivably be redirected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2014 (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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion. While WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged, it's not forbidden, and evidence of the article creator potentially being the subject of the article has not been presented. Also, sources are not required to be hyperlinked in order to be valid for English Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, consensus in this discussion is clearly for article retention. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Potter (painter)[edit]

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

It is obvious that the Article Creator wrote most of the material, and 1 of the 3 sources does not exist. Fdizile (developer) 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good, clear well-referenced short piece about a figure notable enough to have an ODNB article. I can see no justification for proposing its deletion. Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This bio article of an important English 20th century painter could use more in-line references, but it is obviously notable and a good start. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly speedy). The subject appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is immediately indicative of meeting WP:ANYBIO criteria; in addition, she had retrospectives at the Tate, Whitechapel and Serpentine, thus meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria and received an OBE. It is not clear what is the nominator's objection to the article creator having written the article text? - that is precisely what is required of a Wikipedia editor. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepNothing even approaching a reason for deleting this article is given. Artist easily passes notability criteria. What does "one of the three sources given doesn't exist" mean????TheLongTone (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Potter has an OBE, so she is notable. The article also has sources from BBC and museums. The citation formatting needs a bit of work, but this is a new article, so that is to be expected. It does not warrant a deletion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Daikaiju Battle Royale[edit]

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

Having looked around for this project, I'm not convinced that it meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, in general or for video games. The page contains no references and fails to even link to any website for the project itself. It reads more like it was put here to gain traffic from the Godzilla video games page. Maybe the project belongs on WikiZilla, but Wikipedia? Crawldragon (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No results in a custom WP:VG/RS search. Mostly just social media results for a standard Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (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) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have a single hit in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:47, 27 April 2014 (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: Nominator requests an action other than deletion. (As a note, I will redirect after this, but in the future, just being bold is all that's needed.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Proletarian Brigade[edit]

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

Convert to redirect at request of page creator per this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SkyFly Airlines[edit]

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it fails to meet the verifiability (WP:V) or reliable sources (WP:RS) criteria - Monopoly31121993 (talk) -- nomination completed using rationale in edit summary and request at WT:AFD GB fan 12:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The nomination is on the basis of a lack of references in the article, which is not a reason for deletion. Per WP:OUTCOMES, airlines that operate/operated on scheduled routes are considered notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suspect a Bad Faith nomination based on an assumption that is not correct. The airline clearly exists. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor is perpetuating the scam, methinks - see my investigations below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. Fails WP:RS. There should be at least a reference. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 20:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. Something weird going on here, this has already been called out on the article's talk page. The main Internet links for SkyFly Airlines (Facebook etc.) all take you to http://www.skyflyairlines.com/en/index.php which appears to offer a virtual pilot training environment. Either somebody pinched somebody else's company name and has no web site of their own (highly unlikely if they operate as many aircraft as claimed) or this article is a hoax. I go for hoax. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC) [Updated 07:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Update: I have found this archived home page for the purported airline but it is two years old - and archived. Still favour the hoax theory, now specifically of the scam variety, hope nobody invested too heavily. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's more. The account which created the article made no other significant edit save to list it on another page - contribs here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Steelpillow's discovery of this as a hoax, good work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedy delete? In light of the above, is this now a case for WP:SPEEDY? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 23 April 2014 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vax gold key[edit]

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

This article has no references and no indication of notability. Normally I'd say speedy delete, but there seems to be no CSD category that allows speedy for products. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially VAX cruft. It could be redirected to VAX, but I'm not quite sure why one would want to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

… except that it's not — not VAX, that is. The Gold Key was introduced in 1974 (see VT50), years before the VAX (1977). Although it was used with VAX computers, it was also used with Rainbow 100 (8088/Z80), DECmate II (PDP-8), and Pro-3xx (PDP-11) personal computers, as well as DECstation (MIPS) workstations. The creator of this article chose an unfortunate title; a request for move will complete its discussion period in a day or two, fixing the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.30.121 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Gold Key was a signature element of a consistent user interface implemented by Digital Equipment Corporation across multiple product lines. The Gold Key article is still a stub, but it has potential. Although there are, as yet, no source citations in the (minimal) text, the Gold Key is mentioned in articles such as VT52, WPS-8, and EDT (text editor), to be linked in a few days when the current requested move discussion period closes. The Gold Key is discussed in contemporary and historic sources such as DEC Networks and Architectures by Carl Malamud.

Is there an objection that the Gold Key is primarily used by a single vendor? The Wikipedia precedent (e.g., Command key, Option key) seems to be that single-vendor keyboard keys are appropriate article subjects.

Is there an objection that the Gold Key rarely appears on new hardware? The Wikipedia precedent (e.g., Turbo button) seems to be that historic hardware is still notable (and “notability is not temporary”).

While this won't someday become a front-page featured article, I expect it can develop at least to the level of, e.g., Control-V.

50.181.30.121 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the topic has potential, but the current article does not in any way indicate this. If the article is expanded before the AfD expires, then we can reconsider, but currently it's not even at stub-level. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a spirited defense of the article, but it has not established notability for the key. Unfortunately, the book that you cited is a trivial mention; it is mentioned in passing on a single page. Precedents do not exist in deletion discussions, as that is an "other stuff exists" argument. If you wish you nominate option key for deletion, feel free to do so, but the existence of that article will not help this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mention there, true enough; there are certainly numerous other sources.

PDP-8: The manual for the WPS-8 word processing system (as PDF here) introduces the Gold Key as a modifier/meta-key on page 1-8, then mentions it repeatedly as it describes each edit command which requires it — for example, the get-document command (page 5-8), the various ways to move the cursor (pages 5-8 through 5-12, Gold Key mentioned on every page), or the creation of superscripts and subscripts (chapter 9). Appendix A lists every gold-modified key, and figure A-3 (page A-8) even illustrates the Gold Key (gold in the original photograph, distinctive but gray in the PDF's grayscale scanned image).

PDP-11: The “quick-reference” manual for the RT-11 operating system (as PDF here) begins (chapter 1) with a summary of the commands of the KED/KEX text editors, almost all of which are noted as requiring the Gold Key.

VAX: The VAX/VMS Primer (as PDF here) dedicates chapter 2 to the EDT text editor, where it illustrates the Gold Key (figure 2-1, page 2-3), describes it (section 2.4.1, page 2-4), and illustrates its use (using mini keyboard diagrams) with every gold-modified editor command (remainder of section 2.4, through page 2-14).

50.181.30.121 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources, including those above, as general references, to be upgraded into inline citations as the main text is developed. Feedback on the suitability of those sources would be appreciated. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those sources look like they're all associated with the manufacturer, DEC. What you need to find are independent, reliable sources. Manuals published by the manufacturer don't really count toward notability. I've still got a functional DEC Alpha-based workstation, so I understand the draw of nostalgia, but Wikipedia does have inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would IEEE, CRC Press, PC Magazine, and the Free Software Foundation count as independent of DEC? I've added sources from those publishers to the article; as before, they'll be used for inline citations as the new text is developed, once the notability issue is resolved. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they at least muddy the waters enough that it's now debatable. I'd say no on the FSF but yes to the others. The remaining hurdle is whether the coverage is "significant", and people have different standards on that; I've been told that my standards are too high. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CRC/IEEE book describes the Gold Key and its functions to a depth comparable to the DEC manuals, although it's a bit inconsistent in terminology, sometimes calling that key “GOLD” and sometimes calling it “<PF1>”. The other independent sources generally establish milestones of demand and longevity: the Computerworld news item notes that newer Rainbow computers have a Gold Key kit available for backward compatibility; the PC Magazine product review tests a PC word processor created to bring Gold Key-style editing to MS-DOS; and the (current) FSF documentation describes how Emacs EDT mode supports Gold Key editing to the present day. There are other examples of present-day software which supports the Gold Key (e.g., PuTTY), but their documentation likely has no deeper editorial review process than that of the FSF, and I haven't added them to the article. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, Wikipedia had individual articles on hundreds of Pokémon. That madness eventually came to an end. However, we still have way too many individual articles on trivial topics that could be better described in a more general article. I might support a merge to modifier key, but absent the existence of more substantial coverage, I don't see justification for an article on this topic. Here's an example of an article about caps lock: KILL THE CAPS LOCK on Slate.com. It's a rant about how much the author hates caps lock. Unimpressive in terms of content, perhaps, but it's indicative of significant coverage. Not everything needs an article on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more info to the article, based on non-DEC sources, if you want to take a look. As with any AfD edits, it doesn't seem worth putting much time into if there's a decent chance it will be removed anyway. Agyle (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Pokémon suggests to me that we should not delete. All of these articles were merged and redirected, not deleted. See https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_characters for some of them. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the material here seems to be worth keeping, but it doesn't quite seem to justify a stand-alone article on the gold key. However, for users it was probably the most distinctive feature of DEC's VT range of computer terminals (to say nothing of their emulators and software designed to use them) and would be an obvious section in a general article on them. But instead, we currently seem to have about five or six separate articles on the more prominent members of the range. Failing that, a merge to modifier key would work, but if done should require some rewriting of that article, which currently discusses such keys just in terms of typewriters and personal computers - the VT terminals and their gold key were more or less an intermediate stage between the two. PWilkinson (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One consideration is that the Gold Key is not a modifier key, at least not in the specific technical sense described in the modifier key article. The Gold Key is a prefix key which is not also a dead key, and is used by DEC and compatible software the way that Emacs uses the escape key. (A modifier key would be held down while a second key is pressed, producing a single character code, while the Gold Key is pressed and released first, then the second key is pressed and released, together producing multiple character codes.) For serial terminals of the 1970s–90s, modifier keys generally had to be designed into the hardware, while the Gold Key has always been defined and handled in software. So if a merge is considered, perhaps the target should be a prefix key article? 50.181.30.121 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in modifier key is based on dubious truthiness, not fact; personally I'd have put a period after "modifies the normal action of another key" in the opening, so the definition would include prefix/sequential modifiers, but that's just another subjective opinion. Agyle (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good topic, good material which certainly should be kept somewhere, and by implication then we need to somehow keep the article history. There might be a case for a merge and redirect (but I'm unconvinced obviously), and there was one when the AfD was raised, but even then not for deletion, and deletion now would be an overkill of overkill. Andrewa (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or as a second choice, merge to an appropriate topic TBD. I do think notability is borderline here and could be argued either way, but strongly recommend keeping this article content for the reasons outlined at WP:HEY. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointer to WP:HEY — yes, like the Heymann article described there, this one was “an unsourced, two-sentence stub” when nominated for deletion, but has seen significant expansion during the AfD discussion. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.V.Praveen[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A single obscure record in the Limca Book of Records in an otherwise unremarkable life falls smack into the heart of WP:BLP1E. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, no credible assertion of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin If this discussion ends with a decision to delete, please note that the subject article has been moved to S. V. Praveen since its nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I vote for deletion as it does not pass the notability criteria as per my understanding. Boris Barowski (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:BIO. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2014 (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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Italy)[edit]

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

A laundry list of programs for one channel. The majority of Cartoon Network channels carry the same programs. Any unique programs can just be put in the main article. They have few or no sources.This article fails WP:V and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I see no encyclopedic relevance in this article. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (France)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Canada)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Nordic)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (CIS and Southeastern Europe)
List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Spain)
List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Taiwan)
List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)
List of former Cartoon Network (UK) programmes

Werearrwe (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Difficult to distinguish this AFD from the identical behaviour of the prolific blocked sockpuppet User:Finealt whose first actions upon account creation were to state how much they hate vandals on their User page, then immediately nominate a list of articles for deletion. Finealt also advanced the same claim that these channels air similar programs when trying to delete these list articles that seemed to irk them so. Bonusballs (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt as much as Bonusballs did; this is clearly a block-evading nom by the complicated Finealt/Keenan ring. No WP:BEFORE done, all the hallmarks of Finealt, and again, it's clear the nominator's only glance at the articles was to place the AfD tag on each article. I'm bringing Werearrwe to SPI and hope that this is closed quickly per WP:BANNED. Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per Mrschimpf (talk · contribs) as a WP:POINT violation and per WP:BEFORE. JJ98 (Talk) 08:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xilam[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable film company, fails WP:CORP. It's not clear if the company is independent or a subsidiary of Gaumont. Article is entirely unreferenced, as is the closely similar page on fr.wiki. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need to at least search Variety, Screen International, and The Hollywood Reporter before you nominate a film-related article. Xilam is apparently a major player in France: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. This is without even touching the mainstream French-language sources, such as Le Monde, which seems to also provide quite a few hits. However, my French skills are not good enough to reliably translate such articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited the article to address the concerns raised, and I think it looks much better now. It's still a small stub, but it's got enough sources to comfortably demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because it created notable shows. Coverage found also to pass GNG. Dream Focus 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently notable; the work done by NinjaRobotPirate seems to help demonstrate that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanti e Segreti[edit]

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

Not a notable series. An unsourced cast list - fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (media) . Flat Out let's discuss it 11:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable. Article was unsourced and below the standard, but the series is notable and easily sourcable. Apparently a WP:BEFORE failure. --Cavarrone 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone's additions to the article. Gongshow talk 07:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems now to be in workable form. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2014 (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. No copyvio detected in dup detector. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eden FM Radio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. This article or section may have been copied and pasted from http://www.edenfm.co.uk, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Article reads like an advert. Beland57 (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article needs work, it doesn't appear to be blatant advertisement. This station was awarded a 5-year license in 2013 and appears to meet WP:BROADCAST. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article seems to be marginally notable and reasonably free of promotional-sounding content. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, Not the most brilliant article but not something worth deleting, IMHO the "major contributor" wrote it in a very neutral way and well I see no valid reason for deletion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:04, 28 April 2014 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil chandwani[edit]

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

Not adequately supported by reliable sources. References are echo of press releases. Bisswajit 09:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The same article exists at User:NIkhil Chandwani, a WP:SPA account whose editing history consists of trying to place an article on Nikhil Chandwani. This time, though, the article with this text has been contributed by User:Dlovernikhil96, another WP:SPA. This strongly indicates they are the same person. In addition, there was a previous biography deleted at AfD in 2011; apparently it is insufficiently similar for a CSD G4, but there is a pattern of repeat placements. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that page protection is in place against repeated re-creation of articles entitled "Nikhil Chandwani", which is why we now find ourselves at AfD with an article miscapitalised as "Nikhil chandwani". AllyD (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The UK Writers Forum award that is played-up in the text is from a website "www.ukwritersforum.com" on which there is no evidence of notability (and no Alexa rating). The subject's books have been published through self-publishing firms (CreateSpace, Omji Publishing). That leaves any claim to notability resting on the claimed "Indian National Award" in December 2012, if anyone can identify whether this is of biographical notability as an award. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per previous AfD consensus: The claim to be "considered one of the top 5 authors from India" seems to trace back only to the author of User:NIkhil Chandwani (a WP:FAKEARTICLE userpage which was copied into main article space here). The article sources, such as they are, appear to be just PR reprints replaying the subject's various claims; no evidence of notability has been found. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt That the sources available are press releases is made transparent by their wording and repetition across publications. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 30 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enviro-babies[edit]

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

non notable cartoons by non notable illustrator. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything about this at all to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unimportant subject. Article likely was made to promote it, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated or claimed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Saxton Burr[edit]

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

Two sources are cited for this biography: one is by the subject, so not independent, the other is 404. His main claim to fame is a conjecture, L-Fields, that is itself barely significant, with no real evidence of discussion outside his own writings. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of 404's if you are willing to check references here and there. HSB's notoriety is simple fact [17], [18]; regarding L-Fields, obsolescence does not assimilate to inexistence. --Askedonty (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that nonesxistence does not mean lack of notability (see homeopathy, which is complete bollocks but notable bollocks). However, my concern with this article is that it lacks sources. Feel free to fix that. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I thought it would be a fixable 404 - which was a mirage. --Askedonty (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless there is reason to doubt that this is correct, a named professorship (at no less a university than Yale) is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think that with WP:FRINGE topics, that notability is only demonstrated when a reliable mainstream source provides adequate commentary on the fringiness of the work. There were some pretty wacky ideas banded about in the 1930s-1950s period. It also seems that he did some good but routine work in the 1930s but then went off on a bizarre tangent of L-fields. He was an anatomist, and apparently more of a teacher of basic anatomy to med students than a cutting-edge researcher. It isn't really enough that even though have this additional reference I found - this seems to be "wasn't old Burry such a decent chap". We need decent history of (pseudo)science source(s) and that provide examination from a mainstream perspective. I am not convinced about the notability of L-fields either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h-index of 20+ passes WP:Prof#C1. Also passes WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF regardless of later fringe theories: he did a lot of sound mainstream anatomical research. Widely cited (comparison of H-indexes isn't exact for someone who retired in the 1950s, when there were a lot fewer journals, but his work is frequently cited). Also there's a lot about his wilder theories in various books and articles[19][20][21][22]. Barney the barney barney makes a lot of claims about how he wasn't a proper researcher and didn't do anything of value, but doesn't actually provide any references to support that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have almost always kept Named Professors at Ivy league universities. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, many notable scientists have done work on fringe of science, e.g. Isaac Newton's work on alchemy and Linus Pauling on vitamin C as a cure-all for cancer. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5. The article could use a careful examination of whether it gives undue weight to fringe topics over the subject's mainstream work, but that's a cleanup issue rather than a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His research, even if controversial, was covered by Time magazine in 1939. HSB's discoveries were also showcased at the National Academy of Sciences (according to Time magazine) -A1candidate (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anel Škoro[edit]

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

Article about a football player who hasn't played in a fully professional league and coverage of whom does not satisfy the general notability guideline. C 679 08:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TeamCHS[edit]

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

Fails the relevant notability guideline at WP:ORG. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, or speedy A7: not mentioned in any WP:RS (including the sources cited), only mentioned in claims on web forums.
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 08:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. ---→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.166.86.223 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per above. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 18:03, 23 April 2014 (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:BIO says that a person is 'likely' to be notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor", but honours such as medals given to thousands of soldiers clearly don't confer such notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Charles Plumb, Jr[edit]

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

Non notale military officer. Did not attain high rank; did not win top level wards; did not have have a significant involvement in major military actions.

The refs are correspondingly routine, and do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level military officer who lacks notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr Plumb had an impressive military career, but there are no signs that WP:BIO is met. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete per WP:BIO Mr. Plumb received multiple well known and significant honors / awards including Bronze Star, (2) Silver Stars, (2) Purple, Hearts, Legion of Merit, POW Medal, Combat Action Ribbon and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airnavavi8or (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Airnavavi8or (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And none of those awards confer notability, individually or as a group. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fine man who served his country well and bravely, but does not cross the bar of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 April 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Quinn[edit]

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

Regardless of notability, this article is a press release. I do not see how it can be reduced to an encyclopedic article, Every individual paragraph is individually promotional for er products and her causes. I dont think he we removed the fluff there would be anything left. The proper course is to delete and start over again from scratch. If AfC is to be any use at all, it would be to keep material like this out of WP DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional per WP:TNT, This is beyond copyediting into shape.TheLongTone (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Every sentence is promo & isn't really encyclopedic, All in all needs WP:BLOWNUP & redone again. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2014 (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 clear that a full article at this point is premature. I have considered the draft namespace and the redirect options, but decided against them. The article is a stub at present, so I see little need to leave this around in the draft namespace when someone may just want to rewrite the article from scratch. Redirects tend to remain redirects since they don't invite creation of an article as a redlink does, and it is expected that an article will be justified at some point in the future. Nonetheless, if someone does need access to this material for a rewrite when the film is released, contact me or another administrator to have the material restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Tha Main[edit]

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

Article only promotes a film that has not been released even though the release date stated was in 2013. The film does not meet either general notability or the specific notability guidelines for films. The only sources appear to be press releases. The author of the article appears associated with the studio. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (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} 00:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with it being re-created when coverage becomes available, but I just can't find any RS to really show that this is notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly redirect to the actor's page, but I'd prefer not to do that since I don't see where filming has commenced at this time - ie, that he's confirmed to be in it, as plans and casting can change prior to principal filming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A film not released is not so notable to have a redirect to some actor's page. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 08:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzan, a redirect and sourced mention elsewhere is exactly as suggested by POLICY for topics that do not yet have notability enough for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft so as not to require a complete rewrite if it gets coverage once it gets released. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash

Redirect temporarily to main actor Jai Akash as current coverage centers on his particpation and his appearing in all 6 different language releases. And Tokyogirl79, filming appears to have been underway in July per "is being made in five Indian languages and in English" and now completed per source telling us "this flick which was shot primarily at Mumbai" (past tense). An issue in sourcing is that the working title was the simple and common "100". As sources under its final release name come forward we may even find WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to eventually be met for an early return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 24 April 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patton Ki Bazi[edit]

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

New non-notable article that appears to be a spamlink for a book listed for sale on E-Bay, which is linked as the only reference on the article. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We need consider WP:CSB and seek input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians able to search for and find Hindi-language sources. WP:INDAFD lets us know that pre-2000s Indian films rarely have online coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (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} 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The film was a hit movie in 1986. I have added a few sources and will work to improve the article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2014 (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Jewish Hospice[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass our WP:GNG nor WP:ORG guidelines. I found one decent source in Forward but it as written by the director of the org, everything else is mere mention. SarahStierch (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I boldly moved the article from "Metropolitan Jewish Hospice" to "Metropolitan Jewish Health Service", the spelled-out name of the organization actually self-identifying as "MJHS", for which the hospice program is just one of its programs. The organization has annual revenues over $143 million. I added the financial size info from its IRS form 990 filing, from the most recent one available from Guidestar. It is big and notable, but one article about the whole organization with its home care and its hospice and other programs, will suffice. --do ncr am 03:18, 5 April 2014 (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} 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I found only one passing reference to Metropolitan Jewish Home Care (in Haaretz). Pburka (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pburka - Lacks any sources & has no indication of notability whatsoever. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've added a few external links, but none/all of them don't represent significant coverage. I'm sure the organization does good work, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2014 (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. Largely per BLP-related arguments j⚛e decker ^talk 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaka Fattah Jr.[edit]

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

As one of the most left winged inclusionists, I almost never nominate anything for AfD except when I see a blatant violation article such as this one. This is a glaring misuse of Wikipedia and is a WP:PROMO, WP:SELFPROMOTE, and WP:VANITY page. Despite the few sources which are obviously news, there is not a chance anyone would ever write an article on this person except himself or a close associate (WP:NOTNEWS). Zero accomplishments besides, from what I see as, an attempt to sue the IRS and claim harassment (very common occurrence). This article can be revisited if the outcome favors him, but until then this is absolutely trivial. All expansive edits were done by SPAs and IP editors, can't see anything significant about his company either. The biographical information links to personal dropboxs (citations [1], [2], and [4]), clearly a conflict of interest. It is regrettable that this person was able to get away with this for nearly six years. In fact he has been freeriding Wikipedia to make himself more notable and has pushed sources of himself up to the front page of search engines. This is the very thing we are trying to prevent so Speedy/Strong Delete and Salt, obviously this person will try again. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I am amending this delete to a redirect to Chaka Fattah. It appears per WP:GNG that he does warrant a redirect per Forbes coverage which I recommend be protected. I've added all relevant information regarding this person to his father's page. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All references are news, except 7 and 8, which appear to be opinion pieces. If the dropbox referenced pdf files [1], [2] are a violation of wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, they should be changed to the web version of the same news articles. See links, http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/the-personal-touch/ & http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/05/21/story13.html?page=all

It's not clear why Valoem believes this article was written by the article's subject. There is no way to determine if that is true, especially six years after creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the subject's IRS lawsuit was filed in March 2014, and references [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] are news articles that have been written in the past 45 days. I do not think it is clear based on this that wikipedia has been used to push sources of the subject's to the front page of search engines. Those references are from highly trafficked websites, such as philly.com, and phillymag.com, which organically appear high in search results. Philly.com is one of the most popular news sites in Philadelphia, and has a high number of unique visitors, one factor in search engine placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the community should Keep and Expand the article, based on the thirteen news references. If a rewrite is necessary, a verifiable article can be written based on the sources. The news sources are independent and have editorial control.166.205.55.19 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is. The creating account is an SPA with no contributions besides this article. IP editors are on a shared IP in the tri-state area, but edits in clumps regarding this article. Prior IP editors have also extensively and solely edited this article such as this one 71.230.108.152, 68.81.70.199, and this one 72.44.134.178. Your IP has also edited this article in clumps and improperly removed tags. WP:GNG is not the main reason for deleting this article. We should not write promotional articles about ourselves or a close associate. Because this article has an extreme conflict of interest it should be deleted. If an established editor choose to recreate this article with all the cruft removed I have no problems. If the outcome of the lawsuit favors Fattah we can look at it again as well. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valeom, thank you for responding. Yes I have made some edits to this article, in the past week. I improperly removed one tag, and after an editor (Cindy) pointed out the policy, I have not done so since. I agree with you that if an established editor chose to recreate this article without any promotion material, the article would be fine. Or, if the lawsuit favors Fattah. I believe SPA policy talks about assuming good faith. All I am asking for is to not improperly determine there was any bad faith by myself of any other editor in accordance with SPA policy. According to SPA, "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits." Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for your time. Note:the below comments were added before your response showed on the page.166.205.55.22 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused you of bad faith. Not sure where you got that idea. We are talking about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI, which is still an issue. I'd like to note that a lot of uncited information has been removed such as: In September 2007, he was named one of the Young Entrepreneurs of Rittenhouse Square by Rittenhouse magazine. I'm afraid that these could resurface given time. I've also noticed that the article did not have this citation Behind the facade, troubles rose for Fattah son which may be relevant in the interest of neutrality. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valeom, I removed the uncited information in the interest of neutrality. Rittenhouse Magazine, and their website, are no longer in operation, so providing a link at this time is not possible. The other uncited information, such as the subject grew up in "West Philadelphia" in the "Overbrook section" may not be verified by a secondary source. The subject's age is cited in the Philadelphia Business Journal article "If you need a rolls". I will add the "Behind the facade" article. I would also note that yesterday I also added the citation [5] regarding Drexel, which is not necessarily a positive article as it appears to be about a lawsuit against the subject by a casino. I can only speak for my editing, and have no intention to repost the uncited information. Until (Cindy) made the edits on Mar 30, 2014, showing cites were needed, because I am not an experienced editor. I do not believe I have violated WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:COI and would hope that an established editor chooses to rewrite this article.166.205.55.16 (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.16 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valeom, I added "Behind the facade" http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-04/news/31121573_1_gift-cards-loan-officers-school-firm , and two other articles, http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-29/news/31111091_1_agents-fbi-investigation & http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/fbi-investigating-pennsylvania-congressmans-son/ - in the interest of neutrality.166.205.55.28 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even after you added those citations, the article still shows tons of WP:BIAS and WP:COI I'll give you a chance to correct it. I assume when you say "I do not believe I have violated WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:COI and would hope that an established editor chooses to rewrite this article." it means you are saying you are a random editor who has no vested interest in the client and that you are definitely not Chaka Fattah Jr.. Am I correct? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Let me know if you want me to attempt to correct the WP:BIAS and WP:COI. Since I do not have significant experience as an editor, please give specific examples or direction on what changes should definitely be included. I can make an attempt, and maybe you can assist me in making sure it conforms with all the guidelines.166.205.55.20 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.20 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you interested in this person and what other articles have you contributed to? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the subject because I have an interest in issues such as government, education and small business. The subject is a business owner, family member of a U.S. Rep., and previously worked in alternative education in Pennsylvania. http://www.ydr.com/ci_19988604 The subject also has been in a years long dispute with the federal government according to media reports, prior to the recent lawsuit. I have contributed to a few other articles over the years. Articles about politicians in Philadelphia, councilmen/women, congresspeople and in some cases national celebrities if I see a blatant minor mistake. I have not contributed any entire articles. Most of my edits have been minor. 166.205.55.38 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.38 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay if you insist and since you are not Chaka Fattah Jr. there should be no offense. First look at WP:UNDUE and you will get an idea of all the issues. It is fairly obvious that the creator and almost every IP editor who expanded the article has a conflict of interest and may be the subject himself or a close associate. The entire article is wrong from the beginning and claims that Fattah Jr. is notable because of Suing the IRS and his so called "company". I have found nothing that this company even generates revenue and appears to be junk.

The article further claimed that he was a notable entrepreneur with no sources citing that. In truth everything about Fattah Jr. is merely accusations. He is accusing the IRS of "damages for lost income and damage to his reputation", but yet the article has no mention of accusations against him. He is accused of missed payments on a $50,000 loan, fraud, illicit campaign contributions, mismanagement of school funds, and least of all tax evasion (only one mentioned), none of which is in the article thus violating WP:UNDUE. Because he is more notable of those things than suing the IRS, they should be the main focus of this article. However, this would not even make news if his father who actually is notable, was not a politician. Since notability is not inherited this person is simply of no interest.

Essentially this article victimizes Fattah Jr. portraying him as a good citizen being bullied by the IRS which is far from what sources actually say. In reality, his company should be at the end of the article, his lawsuit should have less mention, and the rest, everything I mentioned above. So it appears that the main purpose of this article is to promote his clown investments and joke of a company. Then it attempts, with bias, to victimize him. Am I clear now? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fattah has been using Wikipedia as his personal marketing tool which is why if deleted this article needs to be salted for good measure. It been a good run, but it ends now. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what are you saying is mostly clear. However (Cindy), an established editor, made the change saying the subject is notable for "suing the IRS". Fattah Jr's company is mentioned in several of the news articles as is the value of the $450,000 contract, see philly.com "FBI Seizes" and "behind the facade". The subject has not been charged with any crime, whether tax evasion, illicit campaign contributions, fraud, mismanagement of school funds, or fraud. You appear to be talking about allegations, most of which are in one article "behind the facade". The article does not actually say he is accused of mismanagement of funds, its saying that someone wrote a check to his company which was allegedly misused. The article was written two years ago, and he has not been charged.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about missed payments on a $50,000 loan. I will make sure that is in there. There are many articles that show his company had the above contract with a school company.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references [1], [3], and [4] talking about his entrepreneurial activities. So I will make sure any rewrite has the citations in place.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage does appear to portray Fattah Jr. as a good citizen regarding the lawsuit, and the articles about his business, American Royalty. I don't actually see anything in the article about the subject's investments, so I am not sure what you are talking about. I will attempt a rewrite and then we'll see.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable news sources can be used to bolster an existing article, but we need solid independent sources for a topic to be notable. No evidence is presented of anything of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's recent coverage on 6abc WPVI-TV and 6abc.com make the subject notable, in addition to the independent sources such as Philly.com and The Philadelphia Business Journal.12.30.250.6 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many references, and has a tv interview of the subject, on 6 ABC, which is broadcast throughout the region. Regional news coverage about the subject is a strong indication of notability according to Wiki guidelines.50.243.42.187 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the notability guidelines based on the citations.166.137.12.107 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've amended this delete to a redirect to Chaka Fattah per sources. The sources mentioned by the IP editor are news and Wikipedia is not news. I've updated all relevant information. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Valeom's nomination of this article for the Afd process was in bad-faith. The Forbes article, article citation [8] which he reference in his comment above was cited as his reason for changing from speedy/strong delete and salt originally to today redirect was already on the article prior to his referring this to Afd. In addition, Valeom cites "is not news" is not on point. Wikipedia considers enduring notability. The subject article has citations from February/March 2012 and September 2012 and 10+ citations from March/April 2014. It is clear that for some reason Valeom is biased in this matter and began this discussion for disruption purposes. While some of the information in this article may belong at Chaka Fattah the subject article meets notability guidelines and Valeom should refrain from bad-faith Afd recommendations.166.137.12.107 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As shown above, the user who recommended this for articles for deletion has changed his request to delete this article. The subject meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know this does not work on Wikipedia, AfD is not a vote all established editors have consented against this article, sockpuppet and votestacking is pointless, I have not withdraw my nomination, I've changed it to a redirect which definitely needs to be protected. Also I've reedited the article to be unbiased. I added a wrong citation on Fattah's page by mistake (copied the same link twice) thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the link. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as current delete !votes appear to ignore the existing independent sources (Fox News etc.), whereas the keep !votes are not convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable person. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further review, due a possible guilt by association on Chaka Fattah Sr. who is as far as I can tell uninvolved, there is no reason to mention the investigation, therefore no reason to redirect. I am maintaining the original delete and salt stance. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's borderline, but given our efforts to be cautious in regards to BLPs I think it would be best to delete this subject at this point. There is not substantial coverage in reliable independent sources except for one event that is controversial. Delete. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under BLP All the material is negative, tho sourced, all of it concerns allegations & investigations, not convictions, all of it is relatively minor. I suspect the Phila newspapers covered it because of his father; I don't think we do that. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. All possible notability is derived from an on-going investigation and counter-suit. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am concerned about an almost entirely negative BLP. I agree with DDG that as of now it is relatively minor. The current situation is perhaps best explained in this Politico article. As this unfolds, it may in the future belong in Wikipedia, but not now. I am One of Many (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Khan (defendant)[edit]

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

A non-notable person per WP:BLP1E. SMS ^Talk 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 15:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and when that prediction of "One Event" proves true, it may be reason for deletion. However, there have already be two separate bursts of press coverage for two events, one for the arrest and one for the relocation, and it's hard to imagine that there will not be further international attention to this instance of the Alice-in-Wonderland mutation of British Commonwealth jurisprudence.
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per NOTNEWS and notable. (+I think its illegal to name underage defendents?)Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 11 April 832014 (UTC)
Comment Assertion of a legal issue should not be simply ignored. But we can ignore it until there is a claim more worthy of being taken seriously. Such a claim would have to address both the hint of world-wide jurisdiction and the evidence that Slate, Reuters, HuffPost, NYT NBC News, etc. are non-compliant. (NB: search "defendant", not "~~defendent~~")
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theyre outside the jurisdiction fo PakistanLihaas (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cause celebre that could have legs; if it doesn't a year from now, that'll be the time to delete, perhaps merging some content.
--Jerzy•t 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Crystal Balling it...IF it DOES then it can be recreated. As of today it doesn't have that relevant, as you sayLihaas (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I heard about this case my first reaction was "I hope that no one tries creating a Wikipedia article on this". This person is not notable. This is the most extreme example of violation of the "not news" rule I have seen. Steven Utash is more notable. His beating has caused reaction from people all over Metro-Detroit and a major vigil. It has also lead to five people being accused, at least one with a hate crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - wow. Wow. What can one say? We almost always delete a controversy involving children themselves. I just deleted a racial epithet in this discussion, per WP:GRAPEVINE. While there is little chance of any farther harm in this case, our precedents to protect children are very strong, and this could become a mis-used precedent later. I can't believe this has not been speedily deleted already. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize criminal cases, and we are not a soapbox. We also have no reasonable yardstick for determining if this wil become notable. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (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 Binda Group. Redirecting to Binda Group. Anything worth merging can be recovered from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breil (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP... non-notable and almost promotional JMHamo (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep because is notable company of important industrial group and is not promotional absolutely. But I don't understand this user who has no reasons for his deletion's request and starts a lot of discussions: why?--Puccetto (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some light copy editing but the article, As of April 6, 2014^[update], looks promotional with peacock words. I vote to keep the article but edit the article to a stub. Also, the company meets Wiki notability. Eventually the article will be better. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did more copy edit to remove the promotonal items. Change my vote from weak keep to Keep. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this company is notable. JMHamo does have a reason for this AfD; WP:CORP. Also, I don't mean to judge, but you seem to at least communicate with User:Pagoprima, who created and did a lot of work on this page. Origamite (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I don't know whether this company is notable, but first of all the tone should be made more neutral than now: "beautiful women who perfectly embody the values and personality of the brand: strength, sensuality, daring and primal instinct", "its expression of modernity scratchy, with the sense of power that matter itself communicates with its charming color and with a clean and simple design, a perfect combination of the values of the brand." ... Kareldorado (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sentence and now are you happy? May you to rewrite article?--Pagoprima (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it moves into the good direction. I hope that you see why other Wikipedians regard this as "almost promotional". Could you revise your comment about Hanowa? Kareldorado (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect to Binda Group - Unambiguous advertisement about a company fails notability. No significant coverage in the reliable sources. However, there are few sources not establishing notability to support a standalone article on the subject, but it should be good enough to merge the present article into its parent company Binda Group and a redirect, if necessary could be created to that article section. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Anupmehra. I couldn't find enough in a Google search to ring the notability bell. The cited sources don't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. It's possible that there could be more in Italian and if some are found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Binda Group . None of the refs is independent with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP: notable intercontinental company and article is sourced enough--Ciofeca (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wellknown company with many dealers around the world: article improve needed--Teo Pitta (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved article and now it is a good stub--Pagoprima (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't see enough reliable and verifiable sources for this to be pass WP:CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution Out of deference to AGF I don't want to accuse anyone of anything specifically, but sock puppetry is a no no around here. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge reliably sourced, non-promotional material to Binda Group, until the time that content is expanded to the point that a WP:SPLIT becomes necessary. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enforced because article was extended by reliably sources and merge is no sense option because Breil is a brand more famous than Binda, which is a corporation's name--Puccetto (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DevRain Solutions[edit]

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

Advertising article about a small and not notable company. — putnik 09:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. DevRain Solutions is a large and significant company. DevRain is a company which is known not only in Ukraine but also in Belarus and Russia (I am a resident of a small town Dobrush in Belarus). The company is the organizer and permanent participant dozen regular conferences and forums in Ukraine and abroad. The company famous for its active help in the promotion of start-ups in the international market. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Russian Wikipedia there is an active removal of articles on Ukrainian companies under the flag of "not significant". It is in this I see reason the nomination of the article for deletion. Namely user Putnik (Russian nationalist hates Ukrainians and do not hide it) after criticism on Twitter (https://twitter.com/msugvnua/status/454531589599657984 (copy http://archive.is/K9DwC )) hastened to remove the article in the English Wikipedia, guided by anger and hatred. --Dzmuh (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability (listing as a microsoft partner is not significant coverage); created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May be notable, but the current references in the article don't indicate it. Must be independent, reliable sources. Unable to locate any such sources after a quick search, would change my !vote if sources could be discovered. Sources in any language are acceptable. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicity Mall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not in Canada anymore so I don't have a good source. Perhaps someone local can add one. It would be a shame to lose the article. Something from the Winnipeg Free Press would be good. The mall opened September 17th of 1975 so that should narrow things down. I'm sorry I can't help more with it.Rob Banzai (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2014 (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} 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference about the bankruptcy of Bramalea Limited, the company that owned the mall at the time of the bankruptcy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: You think that a passing mention of the mall in an article about its holding company is sufficient notability? How much of Unicity Mall is actually mentioned in that article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the decline of the mall is an important part of the article, including information from a reliable source about that decline is important. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's clear people want this gone. Just delete it and get it over with.Rob Banzai (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2014 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Christopher[edit]

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

OK, let's get this sorted one way or the other. I've asked the creator to provide evidence of notability other than the films. Jordan Elway isn't notable just because her dad is, and only the You Again ref seems both notable and verifiable, although it needs a better source. Non-notable as it stands despite my request for more facts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i received permission fromMatthew Christopher Inc. to use the photos off his website and offer then to wikipedia per your copyright guidelines.

If you need proof of this. Let me know how to get the letter to you.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flubbadubba1956 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not using capital letters to make a point. It doesn't really make anything clearer and can sometimes make a post harder to read. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend that you not bring up other articles, because the existence of other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) doesn't mean that another article should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia. But as far as the article from from Architectural Digest goes, that's not entirely advertising because while it is insanely brief it's a legit article from an established and long running magazine. I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be enough to really establish firm notability for someone, but then this AfD isn't about Lhuillier's notability. Arguing for or against her notability won't really help anything out when it comes to this AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi jim the offending material was mentioned by VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC). I will strike AFD and go to donate image page

thx

Flubbadubba1956 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see some wedding announcements in major publications, including Out [23] and The New York Times [24]. The NYT article includes a bit of a bio. The Ames Tribune has a bio as well. Then, of course, there are about a million websites selling his dresses (none of which, naturally, meet our requirements for sourcing). Because the Ames Tribune is local and the other two are wedding announcements, I do not think these sources quite meet the standard listed at WP:BASIC. I would be willing to revisit my !vote if additional reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in depth could be produced. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are some of the comments above intended for the Monique Lhullier nomination? ~~Anyway, I am also weak delete but~~ I have a feeling there is possibly more out there. The article is just too weak though, and I don't see much in his press section where you'd think the best stuff would be... Mabalu (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of hits when searching, but as I started to click through I didn't need to get past this one: Matthew Christopher Lookbook at Nordstrom. If he's carried not just by all those smaller shops but by a big national chain like Nordstrom that doesn't leave much question as to notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: can you rephrase your !vote in the context of our notability guidelines? I do not see how a website that sells this person's product meets the independence requirement of WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always about sufficient significant coverage in independent secondary sources, but we have all sorts of shortcuts to come to that conclusion. For example, if a film or a book wins an award, notability isn't inherited from that award. To quote from WP:NBOOKS, "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying books that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a book meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the book." In other words, they're shortcuts. Now, you would be correct to say there is no guidelines for WP:Notability (fashion), but that doesn't mean there aren't symbols we could agree on as indicators of the existence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Having a line sold -- and a "look book" featured -- at one of the biggest department stores in the US is one such symbol.

...But to respond to your question: "Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG." See:

5 page feature for Inside Weddings magazine
Vow Bride magazine(and here)
some local Minnesota magazine
collection in The Knot magazine
another profile in Inside Weddings magazine
interview for InStyle Weddings
piece in Modern Style magazine
Iowa State Daily piece on a little show there
Out Magazine
Iowa State story prior to a (different) visit
TheKnot.com (website for the magazine) covers his collection
many stories at HauteBride (a blog, but not an insignificant one)
And of course this doesn't even count the dozens of full fashion magazine pages featuring models wearing his stuff, sometimes a photospread of a whole collection or looks at a particular show (he is credited for all of these but indeed just a "mention" in notability terms, despite being important in the fashion world and the photo essentially being "about" his work) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Comment Looking at Rhododendrite's links: a lot of them are pretty useless bits of fluff, or advertising/promo. I don't think we can use things like 2 which are really just picture blogs with a tiny bit of text or a very brief summary on that season's styles. HOWEVER... there are a few decent things among the fluff. This works for me as a source as although it's an interview, there is also a lot of commentary in the beginning. And this is also good for me because it has extensive detail about him and his life and work. The stuff on his wedding, such as this spread, is nice but about his wedding rather than him as a designer - although it does mention him doing the bridesmaid dresses. Both of the better sources are good - I think we need at least one other equally good source showing that his designing is notable, but I am no longer leaning delete on this, although I'm not sure I can argue for a keep too strongly either. Mabalu (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some interesting points have been brought up here; I like Mabalu's analysis of the situation. I'll have to do some looking into what it would be that makes a fashion designer notable (and potentially change my !vote), but at the moment, he seems to me to marginally pass GNG. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question as to whether we need guidelines specifically tailored to determine a fashion designer's notability. Personally, I feel that if someone has work regularly featured in leading fashion magazines, or has their work regularly seen in high profile contexts,then that is a case for notability - even if there is very little readily accessible third-party coverage. Some of the more moderately successful fashion designers are often interviewed, but not often the subjects of third-party detached assessments/articles focused specifically on them, even though they may be quite well-known and highly respected in their field. I think Matthew Christopher is one such case. Mabalu (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised there wasn't such a guideline at WP:WikiProject Fashion or elsewhere. What do you think about WP:Notability (designers) as a category of professionals who would have similar kinds of sourcing. (This is going off on a tangent, though -- maybe better for WT:N or WP:VPP? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a slight modification to WP:CREATIVE would be adequate, and cleaner (not to mention easier) than a new guideline. Discussion of the proposal could happen at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). VQuakr (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, it seems WP:CREATIVE mostly covers this case as is - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Fashion designers for anyone interested. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2014 (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. Shii (tock) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Animals[edit]

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

Character(s) from a book or book series which has no article. Given that the book(s) are not here, fails WP:GNG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article reflects the published series of books- not just the characters within the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjispirit (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Benjispirit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't delete this page... the page is about the book series- not the fictional characters!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjispirit (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Benjispirit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD relates to the article titled Spirit Animals about a series of books. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not when the AfD was placed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some consideration, the books fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Clearly lacking mention in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The books fails points #2, #3 and #4 and the authors fail point #5 of WP:NBOOKS without question. And the lack of reliable sources that cause the books to fail WP:GNG also cause the books to fail point #1 of WP:NBOOKS. Bottom line, neither the books series as a whole or any of the individual books come close to satisfying the notability guidelines. Additionally, WP:COI applies as well. Safiel (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These books are certainly not 'notable' in the sense they are not great works of adult literature... however they are very notable if you are a 10 year old child. Is wikipedia only for adults??? The article is NEW - you cannot expect a 1 week old article to be as good as an article that has had the chance to be be edited by a large number of people. This article should not be deleted immediately but if it fails guidelines in time then it should be. continually deleting brand new articles is unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.221.254 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — 110.142.221.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The Wikipedia notability guidelines apply equally to adult and children's literature. And we do have articles on notable children's literature, such as The Cat in the Hat and other well known children's literature. But there is literally tons of children's literature available, only a small fraction of which meets the notability guidelines. It is possible that, down the road a couple of years, this particular book series may become notable at which time it would qualify for an article. But right now, it is not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology or directory of literature. Only those particular books or series which meet the notability guidelines should have articles. This particular series just doesn't qualify right now. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just wasn't anything out there to show that this passes notability guidelines- which all books must do, regardless of whether or not they are for children or adults. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the few mentions of the launch I was able to find, lacking substantial coverage on the books themselves, seems not to indicate a sufficient degree of notability - by encyclopedic standards (see WP:N) - to warrant a standalone article at this point. As mentioned above, it may be WP:TOOSOON. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2014 (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 list is complementary to the category. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeways in Michigan[edit]

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

The entries here (or that should be here) are in Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan already. This was nominated for deletion in 2012 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of expressways in Michigan, and substantially purged of OR at that time, but it's still roadcruft. (No other state in the US has such a list.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category handles the need. Dough 48 72 03:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Redundant.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "redundant" is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". This list article is complementary to Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Unneeded roadcruft. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "roadcruft" and why is that a reason for deletion? Why is it not needed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually I'd love a debate but I don't see much point debating/answering as as you've said "One man's "roadcruft" is another man's useful information." which I actually completely agree to be honest, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I can't find another article that lists the freeways by name. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One man's "roadcruft" is another man's useful information. WP:NOTDUP is relevant here; the fact there is no WP:OTHERCRAP is not relevant to whether or not this should be kept or deleted. The category does not fill the need, because having a roadway that has, say, a two-mile freeway stretch on a 200-mile road (just to give an example of what I'm thinking about) in a freeways category would not be WP:DEFINING. While this list does need referencing and cleanup, that is not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of notable entries. The arguement for "keep the category only" fail WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to the category per WP:NOTDUP; we don't delete lists just because categories cover the same subject. Particularly where this list clearly has more information than just the alphabetized article names, which is all the category can provide. There are other such lists for states, but it appears that there is not yet standardization in this area so they're harder to find (e.g., California Freeway and Expressway System, North Carolina Highway System are styled more as articles with incorporated lists of this kind). So this is an area that needs further development. Lastly, "roadcruft" does not even merit a response as it is not an argument. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (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. Whereas a number of users have worked on the article during the deletion discussion, reliable sources are still missing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Blood EP[edit]

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

Zero justification for notability, references are links to promotional pages from artist. Does not qualify for speedy deletion because the artist has a wiki page, though not convinced by her notability either. vlad§inger ^tlk 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just looking at the sources: Twitter, Facebook and simular it looks like selfpromotion and not notibility atempts. I agree with the nominator. She finnished ninth place on a reality tv show and thats about it when it commes to her notibility. Once this EP gets out and if it gets any notibility by real sources then this page might be untill then no matter how many twitters are twitted about it its a delete vote.Stepojevac (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete - Play is not notable--appears to be self-promo only. Sources are Twitter and Facebook, and no other sources can be found.
Delete - no coverage found to establish notability; the EP appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow talk 01:14, 26 April 2014 (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 based on the arguments, which are in turn based on the references provided. As has been indicated in Martijn's comment, if appropriate reliable references are forthcoming in the future, recreation and/or undeletion can of course be considered. Nick (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Maree Urquhart[edit]

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

Something about this one feels really, really wrong. The majority of the sources are to sites that Urquhart controls herself. The article was first posted in 2005, when she was just fourteen. I've looked for reviews of her books; they're all on crowdsourced sites like Amazon and Goodreads. There's some media coverage of her, yes, but... it feels like it's all been done as part of a publicity scam. And in fact, that seems to be the sort of thing that her publisher does/did a lot of - they seem to be nothing but another vanity press, scamming and lying.

Consider these blog posts from people involved in the book trade, analyzing the Urquhart thing:

In light of these analyses, the various mainstream-media articles fall to pieces, as do the concomitant assertions of notability. I consequently propose that this article be deleted. DS (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if this goes, then the article on her book Dragon Tamers should go as well. DS (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... the problem is that even if there's a question of her legitimacy as far as scams go, if we do get enough coverage as a whole she might still pass notability guidelines. We can't really rely on the blog posts because they're self-published and as such, we can't entirely verify everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've cleaned out the worst of the puffery, which is likely due to one of the previous editors being the author herself. It probably could have been speedied as a promotional page, but there is an assertion of notability here so I'd like this to get a more full look. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a borderline delete, since I did find mention of her in this book, but the issue is that the book mention is in passing and the sources on the article are really the only sourcing we have in general. If we had a book review then I'd be more comfortable keeping this, but we just don't have the coverage here. It doesn't help that the Aberdeen source could be considered local due to the closeness of Iverness to Aberdeen. It's a bit frustrating since the claims in some of the articles assert more than what I can actually find, so if anyone can find sourcing then I'd be much obliged. If more coverage is found, then these pages will need to be watched like a hawk to ensure that it isn't reverted to the more promotional versions. Since the other page (Dragon Tamers) hasn't been officially put up for AfD, I've redirected it to the main page for the author. On a side note, while we can't take the blogs as RS, they do question the legitimacy of the claims made by Urquhart's initial publishers, which is what makes me question the claims made in some of the various articles such as the TV series option and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially all she's known for is the Dragon Tamers series. If we were to think in terms of whether or not the books would pass GNG, it would pretty obviously fail them. Book notability can sometimes be more strict, but even by BIO standards Urguhart kind of falls shy of overall notability. She's close, but not really as close as she should be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Urguhart's own website goes against the claims of 50K published, and a blog post by her seems to hint that most or all of anything Aultbea Publishing has stated is false or should be taken with a shaker of salt. That definitely pokes more than a few holes in the sources we do have. Since I now have more concrete proof to back up what's in the blogs (since this one is by the author herself), I'm changing my vote to a firm delete. She also lists the blogs above, which helps back up their claims since it's not just them saying these things. I feel for her and I wish we could keep this to help her out since she got a raw deal, but she just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Wikipedia:Notability (people) As you surely can see a lot of the edits done on this page were by myself. Is there any way to check sales and website traffic to see what sort of influence she has compared to other pages? Or even traffic to this one page? Is anyone looking for this page?

Reviews only being on crowdsourced sites:

I seem to recall an interview on This Morning too on ITV but can't find a link to it anywhere. Granted not ALL reviews of the book some are more news but you get my meaning I'm sure.

The book appears still available for sale for the public and collectors:

and selling:

In various countries:

http://www.amazon.de/Dragon-Tamers-Emma-Maree-Urquhart/dp/0954934067

She appears listed in other wikis:

I think this really just needs an experienced hand to write it up properly (not me :P) I can doubt the genuineness of some of the edits to date but not the need for the entry. DavefaceFMS (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Daveface, because her publisher turned out to be scamming lying filth, any news story about her which relied on what her publisher said has to be discarded as a source. Any news story which was about how amazing it was that she was a young author has to be discarded as a source. She sold fifty thousand books in less than a week? Well... no, she didn't, not really; that was more lies from her publisher. The book is still available for sale on various sites? Yes, no one's doubting that the book physically exists. She appears on other wikis? That's absolutely worthless in terms of references; in particular, the second one you listed is a Wikipedia mirror site. That list of links you provided -- did you actually look at them? I'll grant that the "read 500 books" review is authentic, but it's a blog post by a tween girl who launched a project in 2008 to read 500 books and then abandoned it after barely a dozen. DS (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS I looked though each but not in great detail I'll admit. I can see how you take any information from the publisher as being false, so should the question at the moment not be to go along the lines of ((cleanup-biography)) and try to find more valid sources of real information before just deciding to remove the content all together. Clearly based on view count the page is being looked for and viewed. DavefaceFMS (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be pageviews, yes, but by who? By people genuinely interested in learning about Ms Urquhart? By people who saw her name on one of the many Wikipedia lists to which you added her, and wondered "who's that"? By people who clicked 'random article' ? By software bots? By you? The answer is that there's no way to know, and that it doesn't matter anyway; despite the fundamental connections between popularity and notability, the two concepts are separate and distinct. As for tagging this article for cleanup... that's essentially what this AfD is, with an added note of urgency: if, within the next week or so, no one can find anything better than the deeply-flawed sources already present in the article, then the article will be deleted. The best I can find is a blog post by Victoria Strauss (on 'Writer Beware', the site that Strauss ran with the late AC Crispin) that includes Ms Urquhart on a list of those who were victimized by Aultbea Publishing and mentions the worthless publicity buzz that (based on Aultbea's lies) briefly surrounded Ms Urquhart. And there's a similar article in the Scotsman (via archive.org), briefly mentioning Ms Urquhart as an Aultbea victim while referencing Grumpy Old Bookman's dissection of Aultbea's lies. This isn't something personal, Daveface: if you can find something to support Ms Urquhart's notability, I'll be totally okay with that. Genuinely surprised, but totally okay. I'm even open to withdrawing this AfD if you can convince me. DS (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what they said above. The problem with the links you gave us is that none of them are usable as a reliable source. No merchant link will be able to show notability, as nowadays with the ease of publishing (self-publishing, minor publishing, and other types), having a book in print means pretty much nothing. It can sometimes help keep someone from getting speedy deleted based on the publisher, but it doesn't mean anything in the end. As far as reviews go, those only really count if they're done in reliable sources. Generally speaking, anything on a social media site or crowdsourcing site won't count towards notability, as in most cases they're places where anyone can post and have little to no editorial oversight. While there are some exceptions, the type of reviews we look for are in places such as newspapers and the like. You can get reviews on places such as trade papers ala Publishers Weekly, but those alone wouldn't really keep an article and even then some of the trade reviews like Kirkus Indie don't count because people pay for them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable author. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So, everybody has been had. We can't turn to what are usually reliable sources because it has been made sufficiently clear they are pretty much all poppycock. What we are reliably left with, is that this is a woman who wrote a book when she was 13, and basic biographical information. Is that sufficient for a Wikipedia article? I'd say it isn't - though it could make for a fascinating magazine article. Lacking that, we can't really do anything other than delete the article for now. Without prejudice to re-creation as new sources might turn up, in which case we should be really careful with them, but might still conclude the subject is notable though. At this point however we have nothing left to write an article about. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely marginal notability, if any. James^x12345 15:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See accounts Special:Contributions/Aliespills, Special:Contributions/Melly224, Special:Contributions/Hippo95321, Special:Contributions/Tinafab, Special:Contributions/JasonRogers86, Special:Contributions/Melissaad, all of which have editing histories entirely related to Dhar Mann. The WeGrow Store is undoubtedly notable, but as was discussed in the previous deletion nomination, he does not inherit this right to an article. James^x12345 15:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ ~~Subject does not appear to have garnered RS coverage for anything except his embezzlement of public funds. As such he seems to be covered by WP:BLP1E.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing !vote to reflect added sources establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added multiple references about him to the article; they are from national sources like U.S. News, Huffington Post, and even the Daily Mail. His notability comes from his role as a "pot impressario" or "ganjapreneur", and it is specifically about him, not just WeGrow. He also got local coverage for his conviction, plus a flurry of international press about his recent engagement to a starlet; that coverage would not make him notable by itself, but it supplements the notability he already had. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After reviewing the history: I see that when this was AfD'd previously, I argued "keep" and added multiple reliable sources (all different from the ones I just added). All of them were subsequently deleted by a Special Purpose Account that apparently wanted to remove all reference to marijuana from the article, and remake it into a promotional vehicle for his proposed new venture Jet Set Life. Nice try, but that's not what he's notable for. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user MelanieN has a compelling case. Multiple notable references.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now has notable refs thanks to MelanieN, Still seems slightly promo which can easily be fixed. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:10, 19 April 2014 (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. Disclaimer: I learned of the existence of Adrianne Wadewitz from the post on wikimedia-l, and I believe we never crossed on Wikipedia, so that I consider myself completely uninvolved. If I count votes, it is 21 deletes against 68 keeps, with some abstaining and arguing both ways. As it is customary in such discussions, some voters do not bother to present any policy-based arguments, and after reading the discussion, I was about to close it as no consensus, despite a clear numerical consensus for keep. I think it is established that she fails WP:ACADEMIC. The discussion is whether she passes WP:GNG, and the main argument is that she got two obituaries in the high-profile newspapers, NYT and LAT, and she was mentioned in a number of publications, mostly about women's participation in Wikipedia (BBC, USA Today and others). Again, these publications without the obituaries are probably insufficient for WP:GNG, and the question, which is debated in detail below, is whether a NYT obituary is sufficient to confirm notability. From what I see, there is no consensus on this issue, and this is why a no consensus closure would be appropriate. However, given a clear numerical proportion for votes, I close the nomination as keep. If consensus has been estalished at some point that a NYT (or any other major national newspaper as LAT) obituary is by itself insufficient to confirm notability, the article can be renominated for deletion, despite my keep closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Beerest 2 Talk page 02:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable academic career; being a Wikipedia editor, however prolific, is not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nom & WWGB - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep per below - I wasn't aware she was included in the NYT which is notable enough. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NYT obit is certainly interesting in its origins. It was penned by a NYT scribe who's written often about Wikipedia in the past, and virtually the entire obit is about her Wikipedia editing activities -- activities that I would not ordinarily expect to see chronicled in a big city paper. Townlake (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons given above. Dman41689 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability certainly isn't relegated to that one event. She's been featured in articles from BBC News and USA Today about the lack of a feminine viewpoint on Wikipedia. That, along with the unprecedented attention paid to her death in the media, makes her notable as a female scholar and activist. Given enough time, I should be able to find enough sources to expand on both roles. ~jcm
- Comment. It remains to be seen whether a couple of quotes in larger articles constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Also, what is "unprecedented" about the coverage of her death? WWGB (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons given above.68.109.175.166 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly to pass GNG you must have significant coverage and she does not. It is always a sad day when we lose good contributors though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WWGB. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't we usually take an obit in a prominent journal like the NYT as prime evidence for notability? --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can help add to notability, but I don't think that a NYT obit is an instant article-needing card. WP:ONEEVENT still applies. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been practice to treat NYT obituaries as per se evidence of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- obituaries in multiple reliable sources, including the NYT, convey notability by themselves, and she's been featured in other articles published by reliable sources during her life. The content of the obits are largely about her achievements on Wikipedia, which clearly the NYT and other WP:RS cited consider significant, even if the commenters above do not. Fortunately, we are able to defer to WP:RS on this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen bios with less sourcing kept at AfD. This is not meant as an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument: I get the feeling that people are being overly critical here because this concerns a Wikipedian. Obviously, Wikipedians don't have (and shouldn't have) a free ride to notability, but I don't see any reason to apply more stringent criteria either. Multiple obits in prestigious newspapers, several other RS (and I'd be surprised if there isn't more to be found). --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AGF, I hope like you that people are overcritical because she was a Wikipedian, and not because of her focus on women's issues. It does seem a bit ironic that we have a source above (the BBC one) describing how Wikipedia is overly quick to call for deletions of articles on women, and yet here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hear hear! It can be unbelievable and heartbreaking how much higher the bar on AfD is raised for women working on issues of gender is than for men working on computer science and other traditionally masculine issues. There is so much more in the obits than about the circumstances of her death that it seems hard to read them as saying these media outlets have covered a rock climbing accident without suspecting other motives even with Good Faith applied. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In an odd way I think it is actually a tribute to her or any wikipedian to carefully make sure that they are deserving of an article. It helps respect their work to build this fine fountain of knowledge and keep it going! It's a sad irony that she fought for womens rights and lack of representation here on the pedia but I hope that most here don't operate on that level. If the subject is notable it should be here! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed, that it is a tribute to her as a wikipedian than we carefully scrutinize articles on Wikipedians to make sure they pass the notability bar; Hell is right on that. But after a NYTimes obit and other clear evidence for passing, I think it's acceptable to raise the suspicion that bias may be part of a reason some are downplaying her notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subjects of NYT obituaries are notable, full stop. And there are enough other sources (e.g. the ones given by jcm above) to satisfy the letter of the WP:GNG "multiple sources" requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, disregard our own COI as Wikipedia editors. Philip Cross (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable wikipedia editor who received her own article in the New York Times, as well as coverage by the BBC and USA Today. People will come here to search for an article on her, and it would be tragic if their search resulted in nothing. QbR54190dfcv (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — QbR54190dfcv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Despite the use of obituaries as references, her notability is not based on her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor. As noted above, there are other references that can (and should) be added, but the NYT obit in and of itself demonstrates notability. JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She did lots of activism and is notable.--Taranet (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who says that being a prolific Wikipedia editor of high quality articles and an activist on gender issues in the Wikimedia movement is not notable? The evidence is the media coverage she got during her life and after her death. Like other people who write for other publications and stand out her work should be recognized. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment As someone who reads and writes articles about women who are activists and trailblazers (see my user page for the lists), I recognize Adrianne Wadewitz as being such a person. It is very remarkable that she participated in the Wikimedia movement the way that she did and that is the reason that she received media coverage both before and after her death. So the article on her explains the gap she filled in the movement, and that is why she is noteworthy. It is not about honoring her with an article. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NYT obituary is per se evidence of notability by long practice. We don't determine notability or non-notability; third-party sources do. And third-party sources have deemed that a young academic who was a prolific contributor to Wikipedia is notable. Evidenced by multiple reliable source mainstream journalism, including the NYT obituary. --Lquilter (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an obit in a national newspaper is usually considered sufficient. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No they aren't. Secret ^account 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since when? An obituary in the NYT has always, in my 8 years of experience, sufficed in discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am surprised at the level of coverage this is getting to the point it meets WP:GNG. Secret ^account 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realize recency may cloud our judgement, but if Wadewitz's accomplishments are as notable or more so than anyone in Category:Wikipedia people, the article should be kept. V C 02:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk contribs)

If there's one place that "Other stuff" should apply, it's Category:Wikipedia_people. Looking through just the male entries I notice Ting Chen, Martin Haase, Samuel Jacob Klein, Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) all have less notability per references than Wadewitz. So why are we even having this conversation?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A NYTimes Obituary definitely clears the WP:N bar -- a rock-climbing death, however tragic, does not convey notability to us or to the NYTimes. They wrote about her because there's more there; as should we. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was afraid someone would create an article and it would be nominated for deletion. I even put it on my watchlist a couple of days ago. For Wikipedia/Wikimedia related people we should extra careful because we're biased. I know I am. I met Adrianne several times in person so I'm not going to !vote on this. Some observations. I agree with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL links. If the article would contain more information and references from before she died I think these points are addressed. I am a bit reluctant to consider the NYT article as a strong source because Noam has been actively reporting the Wikimedia movement for quite some time. I met him in person and I'm pretty sure he and Adrianne met too. Multichill (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that a professional journalist has met, or at the least spoken to, the person they write a news story cum obituary about. That in itself creates no COI. Do we apply that standard to journalists writing about, say, politicians? Of course not. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Adrianne Wadewitz before reading her obit in today's NYTimes. As a fellow academic (not in the lettered social sciences as she was, but in psychological science), I was moved by the details about her scholarship, her brief but promising academic career, and her untimely death. It is all too common for women's voices to be devalued, even in in academia, and especially when they speak of women's history. It appears that Dr. Wadewitz's contributions were to make sure that the women whose stories she told or helped edit did not have their contributions buried. I feel inspired to help ensure that her contributions are not buried either. Please do not delete her biographical entry. Today I will make a contribution to the Wikipedia Foundation in her memory. - Susan E. Brennan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanelisebrennan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides all the good reasons above, this clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per FloNight. This nomination is factually incorrect (by asserting WP:ONEEVENT)!—John Cline (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course, for reasons stated above re: notability. How fitting that this discussion would occur after the creation of this article, but that's all I'll say about that! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw the NYT obituary floating by on twitter and at that time thought she does need an article. Obviously someone else thought the same. Obviously she is notable. At this point I want to repeat one important point: Just because a person is connected to wikipedia does not automatically make them un-notable. Same rules apply. It was her standing in the accademic community (i.e. lifetime achivement) that made her notable in the eyes of the NYT not the manner/timing/circumstances of her death, which would have invoked ONEEVENT. Agathoclea (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG -- NY Times obit, coverage elsewhere, etc. This would be clear even if we didn't know her. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, regretfully. Per WP:ACADEMIC.~~ --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece was in the Media section, and clearly treated her as notable as a Wikipedian (and "activist" if we must) rather than an academic. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. jbmurray, who !voted delete above, has been repeatedly removing the BBC secondary source from the article in favor of a primary source. It is difficult to see this as an act of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a ridiculous and disrespectful slur, which demeans the otherwise civil discussion that has been taking place on this page. I suggest you delete your comment and take your disagreements to the appropriate place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep, now that there are two obituaries: NYT and LA Times. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG met. Once again, we have the sexism that is endemic to wikipedia, she's female, so the notability threshold is five times that of a man. Sheesh, the usual systemic bias. Delete Lawnchair Larry, why don't we? Then revisit this one. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is a difficult time to have this AfD, and a hard position to take. My reasoning for voting delete is based on the context and encyclopedic value of her biography - years from now. Those who cite NYT piece as the sole test for notability should consider that she was described and considered notable as a wikipedian - which leads back to Wikipedia being the original source for notability. I know this vote is soon after her passing, probably not a good time to go through this - even if it is kept now, it's likely it would be voted against in an year, or two or five. It's sad but the encyclopedic value of her article is not going to change. This has nothing to do with sexism, her activism, opinions or her prolific output - purely about notability. General activism and prolific output have little to no correlation with notability. Besides that, it's sad to lose one of our own, and she seemed like a great contributor. Theo10011 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JSFarman hits the nail on the head: "her notability is not based on her death -- it's based on her her work as an educator, activist, and editor." It's difficult to be utterly objective, but we must be careful not to overcompensate by raising the bar higher for notable subjects who are Wikipedians. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like user Multichill, I will abstain from voting since I personally knew her, but I'd like to provide additional reference material, that's not currently being used in the Wikipedia Biography Article of Adrianne Wadewitz, to assist other Wikipedians with this decision;

BBC News Magazine: How can Wikipedia woo women editors?

USA Today: Universities 're-write' Wikipedia to fill holes, include women

Charlotte Sun Times: Remembering Adrianne Wadewitz, Beloved Wikipedia Wiz

Huffington Post: Women Relax, Men Mountaineer: What Backpacks Reveal About Gendered Marketing

Academia.edu: Adrianne Wadewitz

Famous People Obituaries: Adrianne Wadewitz, 37, Wikipedia Editor, Dies After Rock Climbing Fall

ProQuest Citation/Abstract: 'Spare the sympathy, spoil the child:' Sensibility, selfhood, and the maturing reader, 1775--1815

Google Scholar: Adrianne Wadewitz

Wikinews: Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies

Wikipedia Essay: Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment The above sources only further demonstrate that she and her work have received very significant coverage in mainstream media reliable sources. I was not at all familiar with her work prior to today, but this seems to be a very clear keep, based on the WP policies cited by many others in these comments. To be frank, I don't think there is even much ambiguity. There are guidelines for notability, and she satisfies them many times over. Our personal opinions about how she satisfies them are irrelevant in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

I agree, though, that the entry needs to be cleaned up a bit. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) Yes, Wikipedia is not a memorial and her biggest achievement was Wikipedia-related. However, her death was covered in multiple reliable sources and Editing Wikipedia is notable in its own right. The article itself could use a bit of cleanup (i.e. "...and a rare figure in the Wikipedia community." What exactly does that mean?), but that's got nothing to do with whether or not this could be considered "keepable" or not. As mentioned above, WP:COI is irrelevant when there's enough reliable sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also am not going to vote here as I met her at a meetup that we both attended in 2012, but I am unconvinced that she warrants an article. I am one of the more inclusionist Wikipedians that I know, but I have mixed feelings about whether she is worthy of an article. Obviously this is not one of the better times to be arguing this, but I just don't see inherent notability here, even though I can see where the keep arguments are coming from. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JSFarman, additionally on the coverage mentioned above that is not yet used for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I knew Adrianne and worked with her a little; I don't think that means my comments should be discounted, but I'm disclosing it in case the closing admin thinks so. She doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, but I think the NYT obit makes the difference -- if the NYT decides that the combination of her academic work and work on Wikipedia makes her notable, then we should accept that. I think many of the other sources cited are not evidence that she is notable, however; being quoted or interviewed doesn't make you notable. Notability is derived from articles about the person, not articles in which the person is quoted. In this case I think the obit is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that awadewit was an incredibly valuable Wikipedia editor, and I cried buckets when I learned of her death. However, her academic career was in its youth and was not that remarkable. Her primary claim to notability is as a Wikipedia editor and activist, and I believe it is an inherent COI for Wikipedia to put up articles recognizing its prolific contributors. The sources may quote her, but they are not really about her. The exception is the obituaries, which were driven from Wikimedia sources. Even if we consider Wikimedia a reliable source, this is incredibly circular - Wikimedia talks lots about a topic, a third-party source picks it up, and now it is all of a sudden notable? I don't agree. I do not agree that Wikipedia editing is grounds for conferring notability, whether multiple sources confirm that one was an editor or not. I do not agree that Wikimedia activism is grounds for notability, whether multiple sources confirm that fact that one was an activist or not. With all due respect to awadewit's memory, I do not believe she was notable....and I don't think she would have considered her life to be worthy of an article here either. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikimedia talks lots about a topic, a third-party source picks it up, and now it is all of a sudden notable? I don't agree." Yup—that's how it works. Whether you agree or not is moot—the third-party sources are all that matters. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability met.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I won't vote because Adrianne Wadewitz has just about passed away and I think it is unfit to have a discussion like that at this time. So, could we please have this discussion at a later point of time? RIP.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good or bad, AfD's can't be put on pause, so it's now or never. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the fact that I cannot vote either under the idea of it's way too soon after death for the article to even exist. However, I also worked with Adrianne on several projects and cannot vote either because I would declare a COI on myself. I just feel like the article was created too soon.Mitch32^{(Any fool can make a rule, And any fool will mind it.)} 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Karanacs and per additional WP:IAR considerations. There is little specific and detailed coverage except for a fairly short NYT obit. Wikipedia has an inherent COI in creating articles about subjects whose main claim to notability is their Wikipedia contributions. I am not saying that such subjects can never be notable, but I think that the credibility of Wikipedia requires that we apply a significantly higher notability standard in such cases compared to ordinary biographical articles. In this specific case notability is fairly marginal according to our regular standards, which translates into a 'delete' in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a controversial issue. We have a NYT obituary, but it is rather short, and Noam talks about Wikipedia all the time, so the significane factor here is low. I don't know Adrianne because I wasn't much active while she was, but I'm sure she did good work. Sadly, after I analyzed the guidelines, I find this article to fall under WP:BLP1E. Without a young death, there would be nothing. I think people here are taking Adrianne's Wikipedia work too seriously and letting it cloud there voting. wirenote (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you're talking about the "Biographies of Living Persons" criteria, right? And the section about the presumption in favor of privacy? --Lquilter (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Earning an obit int he New York Times is (it seems to me) an obvious sign of notability. What we really need is a way to review this article in a year's time to see if we are just being emotional. On the face of it, anyone who gets a NYT obituary would seem to be noteable.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All said and done, I see no notability. An obituary in the NYT does not give someone notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very sad – not only the events, but also the fact that we have to have this discussion. But I don't agree that a NYT obituary automatically implies notability, and I am not seeing any claim to notability beyond Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributions. I didn't know the editor in question but I suspect that if it were not for her tragic death, there would be no article and no suggestion of there being one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The notability isn't so much the work on Wikipedia itself but the metadiscussion about Wikipedia and gender amongst other topics, discussion that has attracted attention and is part of popular culture and information culture. My view is that people use Wikipedia to provide context for topics and subjects in dicussion. News articles, and obits, as listed above, confer notabilityTullyis (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. I like to think she'd be amused by this. Certainly she never strove for notability during her all-too-brief life. And I wouldn't have started an article, even after her death. But then The New York Times ran her obituary, which to me is a slam-dunk quickpass for notability. Just because someone doesn't strive for notability in their lives does not mean it can't be conferred posthumously, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add something here, WP:Notability is not temporary. Even if it was her death which was most notable, that still works here. Even if it's short, someone who doesn't live in New York getting an obituary in the New York Times is a sign of notability. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After, I read about this accent in various climbing forums and press releases, I turn to wikipedia to read more details. I assumed that there would be an article on the subject here and would have been disappointed otherwise. I was surprised that to find this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the obituary was written by Noam Cohen is irrelevant; it's standard practice to have a journalist write the obituary for a person related to the beat he or she covers, particularly when the obit doesn't run immediately following the subject's death. (This ran more than a week after Wadewitz died, and, significantly, it ran in the print version of the paper as well as online.)

Regarding the notability inherent in a New York Times obituary, I'm quoting Bill McDonald, the obituaries editor for the paper: "When we look to see whether someone had made a newsworthy impact in some way — who "made a wrinkle in the social fabric," as Margo puts it — we don't equate significance with fame. In point of fact, 9 out of 10 people we write about are indeed not household names (the 10th is — a movie star, a secretary of state). But that doesn't negate their importance. Most made their marks in quiet ways, out of the public limelight, but they still made a mark, possibly on your life and mine." (Talk to the Newsroom: Obituaries Editor Bill McDonald on Measuring a Subject’s Importance). JSFarman (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This seems cut and dry to me after reading the NYT Obit, then seeing three other examples of significant coverage in the mainstream media. WP has established criteria for notability, and she already more than satisfies those criteria (and then some). Individuals' personal opinions about her worth as a scholar, etc., are irrelevant since mainstream journalists/experts have already determined she is notable by dint of significantly covering her life and work. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep please keep this. I didn't know her i just read her obit in the new york times and looked her up on wikipedia. What an amazing person! She gave so much to wikipedia and to the world through her articles and research, you would be doing her a disservice to delete this page about her. I think contributing hundreds of articles on the achievements of women, and helping people all over the world to better understand the people who have helped shape it is totally a "notable achievement." wikipedia puts knowledge in the hands of the masses, it's like a modern version of the printing press, how is contributing to that not notable? like the other person who commented above, i was shocked when i looked her up to find that deleting the article about her was even in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaklandjen (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

You've just argued that the article should be a WP:MEMORIAL. I suspect this emotion subconsciously underlies many of the comments here. Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You may suspect that, and I may suspect other motivations -- but our speculations don't matter,* because ultimately we look at third party sources. I have really not seen anyone arguing successfully that someone who has a NYT obituary is not notable. * Actually, they do matter, because you are supposed to assume good faith. I for instance wouldn't argue for wikipedia articles for deceased editors, generally, but a Wikipedia article on a person who has been determined to be newsworthy by third-party sources is completely relevant. --Lquilter (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the fact that someone comes to wikipedia, from a NYT obituary or other press ... exactly demonstrates why an encyclopedia article is appropriate. People who read third-party news sources or other resources may go to an encyclopedia for an overview and more information about the subject. That's why the encyclopedia exists -- to provide articles about notable topics. Which are defined by press/other third party coverage. --Lquilter (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obituaries are not indicators of nobility, nor are very many...if any any all...of the keep votes above free of appeal to emotion arguments, and should be discarded as such. Death is a tragedy, but memorializing a Wikipedia editor for all-time with an article is highly improper and quite frankly an abuse of the project. I'm sorry, but if the sole claim to notability here is a death notice, then that is the worst possible basis for a article. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I find this argument completely counter to Wikipedia policy. If someone has been *noted* by a major newspaper, then ipso facto they are *notable*. And it's a bit of a misrepresentation to call a full obituary written by the newspaper's journalists a "death notice", a phrase that more commonly refers to a very different category of item, an announcement paid for by the deceased's family. Do you have a basis for your assertion that it is so impossible to be notable for Wikipedia editing that even thinking of it is "an abuse of the project"? Because frankly that language, in contrast to most of the discussion here, is what comes off as an appeal to emotion to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted for dying is not notable. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noted is notable. It doesn't matter for what. But in this case, the Wikipedia editing seems to be a larger part of why the NYT chose this particular dead person, among so many, to write an article about. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, Wadewitz is already memorialized at WP:RIP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Dr. Wadewitz was a pioneer in the emerging academic area of Digital English. In a brutal and withering academic employment market in the Humanities, she managed to obtain support from the most prestigious sources. At Wikipedia, she participated in two long-running podcasts, leading one which focused on helping Wikipedians and scholars with research and writing. Her series of articles on Jane Austen logged more readers per month than the most famous "old media" publications on the same subject, which amazed her doctoral advisers. She also was involved in research on Wikipedia editorship, and wrote extensively on it. She packed a tremendous amount of scholarship and contributed substantially in a very short period. The New York Times article alone recognizes some of her achievements, but to be honest it barely scratches the surface of what she produced. I spoke with her for many hours on Skype and in person over a period of years, and believe me, this was a unique scholar.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of gushing testimonial is precisely what I was referring to above. Because Wadewitz was "one of us", there is a very real and difficult burden of objectivity to maintain. The tragedy of her death, especially the circumstances and her young age add even more burden. To read the Filll's post gives one the false impression that Wadewitz was a leading academic, whereas in reality, she was junior faculty with a record roughly on par with her title. I join those above who have expressed concern w.r.t. the way this article is being assessed and hope the closing admin will go through !votes carefully. We should not make this into an inappropriate memorial. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have some knowledge of academia and research, well outside of this cloistered Wikipedia garden (being here anonymously, I will not fill this post with my credentials, but I have plenty of background that allows me to judge her contributions outside WP). There is little doubt in my mind that Dr. Wadewitz was already making substantial inroads in academic circles and was going to make far more. I do not "gush" over her just because I knew her or because she was a Wikipedian; in fact, I have almost completely stopped editing WP because I find the intellectual standards of most editors abysmal. Dr. Wadewitz was an exception to that observation. Not only did she have potential, but she was fulfilling that potential. Do we really need to interview those who awarded her her fellowships, and those who hired her? Having a WP article is not akin to winning the Nobel Prize for Literature, you know.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a more than a passing familiarity with academia. Accomplishments are an open record and you can readily check hers at WorldCat, WoS, etc. What you will find is very average for a junior academic. Mind you, I have not said Wadewitz is not notable. As David said above, and NYT obit is hefty. My concern is rather that many comments here are overtly biased based on the fact that she was "one of us". For example, you've now added WP:CRYSTAL ("Not only did she have potential") to your wall of testimony. This is the sort of thing that makes WP look provincial to the outside world. Agricola44 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP. She's notable and deserves to be included. ----Sue Maberry (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As the book Fame At Last, a historical analysis of the NYT obituaries, reveals, the notability criteria for being included in the NYT Obit is exceedingly high ("Your chances of getting an obituary in the Times are fairly remote, about one in a thousand, or less" according to author John Ball). If she met the notability to be included in the NYT Obits, then she doubtlessly meets Wikipedia's substantially lower criteria. Thebrycepeake (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I worked with the subject of this article and I feel that she would want me to post as I saw fit. Leaving aside the obituary from The New York Times, the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG and even with the NYT obituary the subject does not meet specialized criteria like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The major argument for notability for this person is an obituary from The New York Times, which many people here are interpreting as definitive proof of notability. I say delete because in past conversations I have had with Wikipedians it was thought that an obituary in this paper was not sufficient to prove notability.

In 2013 some researchers came to the Wikipedia community and proposed to develop automated tools to start articles about women based on obituaries from the The New York Times. Their intent in doing this was to counter gender bias in Wikipedia. They had a very clever demo live on their site at that time but which now seems removed or back in closed access. When I talked with people about judging notability by having an obituary in The New York Times, some people told me that a system like this would be problematic as neither NYT obituaries nor any other single publication grant notability, and even multiple obituaries may not meet inclusion criteria.

I support the creation of Wikipedia articles according to community thought and precedent and guidelines. Without the NYT obituary I feel that this article definitely does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria and think others would agree. With the NYT obituary I feel that some people are persuaded, but based on other conversations and thought that I have put into this I feel that the NYT article does constitute the coverage requirements to WP:GNG. I do not like the idea of clearly defining a line in which Wikipedia policy is changed to say that people with NYT obituaries are notable, because so far as I know, this argument has not been used in the past. I definitely do not want people in the future claiming notability for everyone in the NYT unless the Wikipedia community thoughtfully says this should be so. If this article is kept I wish that it could be done so based on precedent and not because of any new rules, and I do not feel the precedent has been met here at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Who are these "some people" who told you that NYT obituaries don't signify notability? I wish I'd known about this experiment, because I would have had a lot to say about it. (2) Just as a matter of being precise, I wouldn't say that NYT obituaries -- nor any other source -- "grant notability". Rather, they demonstrate notability, which is gained by the subject. (3) I'm sort of annoyed by all of this second-guessing of third party sources, which strikes me as WP:OR and subject to bias. How, exactly, are we supposed to determine notability, if not by using reliable source indicators, of which NYT obituaries have been a keystone? Are we now supposed to apply our own personal, subjective opinions? Isn't that the very definition of original research and non-neutral point of view? Seriously. If this person were a contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica or any other work of scholarship, and for whatever reason, had become a known commentator on some issue in that work of scholarship, then we wouldn't really have a question. Excluding the subject based on the reference being Wikipedia is also a type of bias. (4) Folks who don't personally think that Wadewitz' work was notable, you are heard and recognized. Please find some objective criteria by which to distinguish the "non-notable people who receive NYT obituaries" from all the rest of them, who have always had NYT obituaries as a recognition of their status. Otherwise I'm going to have to believe that it's an unfortunate example of gender bias because Wadewitz's contributions don't seem important to you. Those of us who do work in feminist scholarship are not perhaps as skeptical, and you may wish to reconsider your own sources of knowledge and opinions, since you are deeming the most mainstream of news sources as somehow not objective or reliable. In this one instance. So I'd really like to see the criteria by which that determination is being made. --Lquilter (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter Thanks for your comments. You seem upset. Thank you for making space for me to speak. The project to promote NYT obituaries as a standard for establishing notability is still active. If you would like to join me in contacting the project coordinators and would help them apply for a grant at meta:Grants:IdeaLab, then I would support your efforts in doing so as they have wanted help in the past. Wikipedia is not a reasonable channel for expressing emotion so I cannot properly reply to anything else you have said, but if you would like to talk by video or phone then email me. If you would like to make a proposal at WP:GNG that a NYT obituary is objective criteria indicating notability then do so and I will write a favorable argument supporting your proposal. If NYT obituaries have historically been an indicator of meeting GNG or some other inclusion criteria then of course I would immediately support keeping this article and apologize for spreading misinformation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Bluerasberry. I will follow up. As to the comments on my emotional state, I think they're not appropriate, but I'll state for the record that I'm often pretty annoyed at double standards and assertions made on *FD discussions that rely on subjective assessments of lack of notability. The only objective assessments we have are media coverage; we have media coverage. For those who argue we should abandon the objective standard of media coverage for subjective views of "notability", I'd really like to know what the new standard will be. For those who argue that NYT obituary is not per se notable, I'd like to see an instance of an AfD where that was held to be true. --Lquilter (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for commenting on your emotional state. I felt backed into a corner when you criticized me by saying that my actions were an "unfortunate example of gender bias because Wadewitz's contributions don't seem important to you." I felt hurt that my efforts to promote women's outreach on Wikipedia were dismissed, I felt as if I were being pushed away from commenting in women's space, I felt pressured that I was being restricted from expressing myself, and because I associate Adrianne's work with my friendship with her I felt bad when you said that my actions indicate that her work was not important to me. I should not have said you were upset. I was upset. I apologize for making a statement about you because it was wrong of me to do so.

I do not want to continue this conversation here because I am not enjoying it at all. Anyone who wants to talk to me can email me and talk by phone or video. I do not wish to find an instance of AfD in which someone had a NYT obituary and was deemed to be non-notable because I am less concerned with that happening in some odd case and more concerned that inclusion based on obituary for a Wikipedia public figure will set a precedent if one does not already exist. I posted a draft of this rule at WP:BIO because I wish to answer you and divest myself of further conversation in this space. I am not happy thinking about any of this anymore. Lquilter, as I have told you before, I like what you do and I am sincerely sorry that I am unable to act in a way that avoids harming people as I harmed you. I wish to be a better person. If I had to do this over again I would never want to have a conversation like this on Wikipedia and only do things like this in person, by video, or by phone. Feel free to call me anytime to collaborate on anything - we have a lot of common interests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As someone who knew Adrianne, I feel rather uncomfortable participating in this discussion. A sticking point seems to be whether or not an NYT obituary indicates sufficient notability. I rather agree with User:Bluerasberry about this. If the precedent exists, then I'm happy to follow it. If it doesn't exist, I'm not happy setting it here and in this manner. This has nothing to do with my opinion of Adrianne or of the value of her work, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So borderline I cannot make up my mind. What do you think, User:DGG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask if people will be likely to be interested in this article in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I read the NY Times article when it appeared on the yahoo.com homepage. That article plus the USA Today article (and others) are enough to meet GNG for me. She was already distinguished as an activist for feminism on Wikipedia before her death. Royal broil 04:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Defective nomination in the first place: BLP-1E is for living people. Passes GNG through sources already showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nomination is mentioning WP:ONEEVENT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one AfD I never thought I'd see here. I consider there is firm precedent that anyone with a NYT editorial obituary is notable, at least for the period after 1900. I can not recall when any such article was ever deleted, and unless significant counter-examples can be shown, that determines the rule. We have even accepted it for society figures of no particular intrinsic importance except for being a member of "society", and that is the sort of non-accomplishment notability about which I would otherwise have the strongest doubts. For anyone with accomplishments of an academic or public or professional nature, they are a better judge than we are. I am not one of those who think the GNG the best criterion in all fields: but it is necessary as a backup, and this is an example. But for the general standard of what notability for people in the US means to the public, the NYT is the authority. That we should make the only rejection of it for one of our own , implies that regardless of what the NYT says, we ourselves knowing her better think her unimportant. Is that what people here intend? I rather doubt it, but I can understand the deletes in no other light, and they need to think it over again. But I would be prepared even without the NYT to make an argument for notability here, and not a particularly borderline one either.(I should mention that I've unfortunately cannot claim to have been a personal friend, much as I now regret it. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply, because she didn't become notable simply by dying. Powers ^T 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable, and interesting; perhaps wikipedia should be deleted too?...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE For the following reasons (Caveat: I knew Awadewit very well):

The factual propulsion behind all these news sources is rooted in grief. Wikipedia holds some baffling influence to get a single editor into the New York Times, which is absolutely stunning and I am willing to entertain the idea that Featured Article writing is such a novelty, is so new to society and technology that news agencies would want to cover some aspect of it, but creating an article about Awadewit to do that misrepresents HER efforts and the FA writing and reviewing process. In this case, I have to cite WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, not because someone is taking facts out of context from the New York Times source, but from my entire experience in FAs. Because it is impossible in this instance, no matter how close we profess to stay to Wikipedia's ideals, to divorce the source material from our own experiences.

An obituary in the New York Times, and it being regurgitated by clickbait sites, does not make someone notable. Take, for instance, Bob Green, Anita Bryant's first husband. He got an obituary in the Washington Post, as many people do when they die. Notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Well, I suppose so for the first editor to create his article just to prove a point here. But not really. Watching this take place is harrowing and fascinating. People grieve openly on the Internet, and a writer at the New York Times takes that as synonymous to legitimacy and strength of presence. I added the longest comment to date on Awadewit's page after learning of her death, which I am beginning to regret profoundly, because it is being used to bolster something I do not agree with. I would have written a similarly passionate and grief-filled exclamation upon hearing about the deaths of a dozen other editors I worked closely with.

What was included in the New York Times obituary, aside from a few specific facts, could easily be said about dozens of editors active in Featured Articles. Awadewit would have been the first to point this out. To highlight one editor who worked on feminist issues ignores the other editors, regardless of what they worked on, but is a specific slight particularly to female ones, who also worked on feminist topics or those relevant to women. Myself included. Where previously I considered the dialogue about female editors to be puzzling because FAs generally had any number of active and strong-willed women at work at any given time, now this is just doing a whitewash by repeating the same crap that women aren't a part of the process on Wikipedia. STOP THAT. It is not true. I am a woman with 20 Featured Articles and I am saying this. (Because I am alive, does it make my experience and perspective less valid than Awadewit's or Noam Cohen's obit? Somehow, I fear that is the case.) Awadewit and I are not a unique pair of pioneers. Awadewit was not the first and not the most active, and calling her prolific... using ANY of these superlatives is again doing a whitewash of the truth and don't get all WP:TRUTH and WP:V on me. This article is about a Wikipedia editor, being argued about on Wikipedia. Those only partly apply and Wikipedia seems like a monster that is eating itself by having this discussion.

This article is slacktivism, or an expression of desire for action only as long as little effort is put into the product as possible, which I find profoundly disturbing. By following Wikiepdia's guidelines, the article would have to summarize the best source(s), which is itself a summary of Awadewit's life. Her life is essentially simplified into concepts and ideals, based on cultural standards here at Wikipedia, across the Internet, and in academia, and it minimizes her presence, not acknowledging the fully dimensional person she was. She is, in essence, being remembered by being horrifyingly simplified so editors here can feel better about themselves, can find meaning in memorials, feel like they accomplished something without doing anything. This tendency for Wikipedians to see slacktivism as worthwhile is deeply ingrained in this system. It's very depressing. This article will remain a shitty stub until many, many other sources concentrate on Awadewit's very short career, if ever. It is possible it will remain a shitty stub for years. What an honor for Awadewit...

Instead: start an effort to get an onsite historian to keep records and tell the story of how Wikipedia has developed. Start now. The Featured Article writing process is in reality, quite extraordinary, because it is done collectively, not by a single person. Awadewit was a part of the entire fabric of Wikipedia and she helped raise standards across the project. She is not unique, however. Unfortunately, she is dead now, so we/you get to determine her place in the grand scheme of reality. Just don't misrepresent the rest of Wikipedia in your rush to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That GNG slights many who work on underrepresented issues is undeniable. However, that's a problem with GNG. GNG specifies mainstream sources. Which we have here. (2) Your sense that many of us are motivated by grief is apparently the sense of quite a few editors. It's not relevant and, in fact, not necessarily accurate. Citing to policy, practice, and precedent are relevant. Your proposal to memorialize Adrianne Wadewitz through other measures are great; but they shouldn't affect this discussion -- on whether or not AW passes GNG. (3) You are correctly noting that Wikipedia mainspace articles are not the place for memorials. Nor are they a place to delete articles on notable subjects -- as defined by GNG -- because of the feelings of editors who think the subjects wouldn't be well-represented. It's our job as editors to create and maintain well-crafted articles on notable subjects. Notability is defined by mainstream media, not us. --Lquilter (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will never cease to amaze and depress me how I can make more sense than anyone else in a discussion, to have someone I never met (to my knowledge) come behind and inform me which of my points are valid and which aren't. As if the people reading are too stupid or ADD to tell the difference. Maybe they are, which is why I no longer participate. Who's next? I know you guys can be persistent and condescending, if not completely accurate or intelligent. Or you can just let my lengthy points stand without response. If you dare. I don't think you do. --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that we disagree, and we can leave it at that. --Lquilter (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A wise response. I suppose Wikipedia may still have a few surprises in store. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WWGB, and Moni3. Creation of an article at this point is misguided, at best. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was shocked and saddened by her death, and yes, I'd like for her various and valuable contributions to be recognized and memorialized. That said, the best way that we as a community ought to do this is to uphold the sort of work that she did, which includes maintaining high standards for our content. Those high standards exclude the article about her as a person, but they're a good memorial of her as a Wikipedian. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the substance of the dispute, which is whether a NYT obituary, and additional media coverage, meet WP:GNG. There is no serious disagreement about whether memorials are appropriate reasons for wikipedia articles (they're not). There is, however, apparent disagreement about what constitutes sufficient media coverage to demonstrate notability. --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get technical. There are two potential sources of notability I see: Wadewitz's life (as an academic and prominent Wikipedian), and her untimely death. The former doesn't support a notability argument particularly well: almost all of the coverage focuses on the latter. The fact of Wadewitz's untimely death is a single event, and so its coverage should be discounted significantly when considering notability. Thus, there is little support for an argument that Adrianne Wadewitz is notable. This argument has been expressed elsewhere in this discussion, so I decided it was unnecessary to repeat it it in my initial comment. The message in my comment is about emotions: I suggest memorializing Adrianne Wadewitz with actions rather than words. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep she is internationally famous (as validated by the editors of BBC, NY Times, USA Today ) for her feminism. The fact that 90% of Wiki editors are male was a great challenge to her and she worked on it. Not surprisingly, some of those 90% are unhappy with her as we can see on this very page. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - normally I would not agree based on just being a notable Wikipedian. However, that notability reached a level which got international mainstream media attention - as well as her work around other issues. For that reason and others outlined above beyond just her Wikipedia work, I support keeping the article. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I said we had never deleted an article on a person with a NYT obit, I was answered that we might delete someone whose principal source was a Washington Post obit. I don't disagree with that. The only other paper we've accepted this way has been the London Times. There are probably others in various places in various time periods, but they've never been extensively discussed. And the content of the obit is not relevant, just the editorial decision to include it. I would hold to this principle even for someone who I though personally insignificant, on the basis that the NYT is more reliable than I am, or even than we collectively are. Some of us seem to have a strong negative coi, such that anyone involved in this project is unlikely to be notable , regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This has been shown at AfDs for other WP figures, but never before for someone with such sound sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete This strikes me as the type of self-referential article we want to avoid. I also see no reason to slavishly follow the decisions of the NYT. The NYT does not create notability. Multiple, indepth, independent sources is the gold standard, an obituary in one newspaper, even f reapeated ad infinitum, is not the way to pass the GNG. I also find it very disturbing the assumptions of bad faith by some editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the NYT does not create notability ; it recognizes it. That's the whole point of the GNG. I have never liked our practice of using the GNG in all cases, but it is a useful backup, helpful in resolving disputes like the present one. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes there's the NYT article, but there's lots of other articles about her in other media. Thanks to the creator and the contributors. Deansfa (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I first considered !voting keep, as there appears to be significant coverage. But the coverage of her death is huge, but in the end, this is a WP:ONEEVENT as there is almost no other information available. The older media has just a passing mention. I've looked at Tinkermen's proposed sources, but I'm still not in favor of keeping. I believe the minimum h-index value required for notability is 15 (correct me if I'm wrong) (see here). The paper being listed in ProQuest doesn't meaning anything, because it's not a selective database (there are millions of papers listed there). So, I'm not seeing notability, although it is a close call. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've misunderstood WP:ONEEVENT. I agree that there is significant coverage. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with those who hold that the mainstream secondary sources are quite good enough to pass GNG. She is clearly notable for what she accomplished and stood for, not how she died. I also think we are going to feel very foolish if we delete this entry too hastily, because the things that she is mainly notable for — public, feminist championship of Wikipedia as a shared worldwide resource, and modeling an emerging approach to public scholarship — are nontrivial. Overall, I find Lquilter's arguments the most cogent on this thread.Alafarge (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with WWGB, Bretonbanquet, and Tarc on this. I don't see how contributing to Wikipedia makes anyone notable, and as an academic, she fails WP:SCHOLAR big time. There is absolutely nothing in the article or sources that make her out to be anything other than an average, unremarkable scholar whose hobby was editing Wikipedia. While her contributions to the project are appreciated, article space is no place for a eulogy. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Varnent - but also because asides from the NYT she really is mentioned in a lot of scholarly places, and has authored or collaborated with a number of important projects. With just a few days time I'm sure an impressive number of citations confirming notability would be found. -- kosboot (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"being a Wikipedia editor...is not notable"

"being a Wikipedia editor...is not notable" comes from the very first comment above, and I hear it echoed over and over in this discussion. I think this reflects a deep value among many Wikipedia editors, one that in 2012 I compared in a scholarly article to the analysis that historian Frederick Jackson Turner used to explain the hyper individualistic democratic psyche of the American frontiersmen in the 1800s: What they objected to was arbitrary obstacles, artificial limitations upon the freedom of each member of this frontier folk to work out his own career without fear or favor. What they instinctively opposed was the crystallization of differences, the monopolization of opportunity and the fixing of that monopoly by government or by social customs. The road must be open. The game must be played according to the rules. There must be no artificial stifling of equality of opportunity, no closed doors to the able, no stopping the free game before it was played to the end. More than that, there was an unformulated, perhaps, but very real feeling, that mere success in the game, by which the abler men were able to achieve preëminence gave to the successful ones no right to look down upon their neighbors, no vested title to assert superiority as a matter of pride and to the diminution of the equal right and dignity of the less successful. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that participating in a gameshow does not make people notable. But when applying WP:GNG they become "notable" in the wikisense. Equally we can't allow what we personally think makes someone important to overrule WP:GNG to establish notability. Agathoclea (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Editing WP does not count toward notability, nor does participating in some game show. But if reputable media note these activities, that is when somebody becomes noteable. BTW, I object to the use of the word "deserve" or "merit" that many people above use. A bio on WP has nothing to do with deserving or meriting, but only with notability (for better or for worse). --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG: [25];[26]; [27];[28]; multiple sources (eg, BBC, USA Today) during her life. Why these independent sources found her entire life notable is rather beside the point of a deletion discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Adding Los Angeles Times in furtherance of GNG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is no one bothered by the fact that the longest section in the article (Digital humanities) is sourced almost entirely by a self-published web page (See article talk page.) or that the longest paragraph in the section on her death is sourced to online message boards? The unbiased among you will rethink their support for the article, others will make excuses for the sources, some will try to find better ones. Probably most will dismiss this comment as the rantings of an IP and suspect sockpuppetry (nope). Oh how predictable you are, Wikipedia. 70.134.226.155 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid issues for CLEANUP, not DELETION. AFD is not for cleanup... --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, but WP:GNG is all about significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If the assertions in the article aren't supported by reliable sources, then they can be removed. And if they're removed, is there enough remaining for notability? 70.134.226.155 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is independent of content. Content should reflect that notability, but poor writing cannot take away existing notability, especially if we know GNG complient sources exist. Agathoclea (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While, WP:Notability is needed for an article to be kept, the content of the article may correctly use all kinds of sources not used for wp:notability (see eg. WP:SELFPUB). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion
You claim above not to be a sockpuppet. It is not believable that you just wandered by and were instantly capable in placing obscure tags on an article. Edison (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG.Valli Nagy 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValliNagy (talk • contribs)
I'd just like to point out this. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of !voting in a deletion discussion when the article's subject passed away, so I'm just going to leave this here as a note. There does appear to have been considerable previous coverage in press sources before the present. Cloudchased (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Those Google links, while numerous, don't amount to "considerable previous coverage" of the subject herself. Townlake (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is both sad and inappropriate that we should be having this discussion just a few days after her death, all the more as she clearly meets GNG. And, because the significant coverage she has received relates to the entirety of her activity as a Wikipedian, not just to her death, it does not fall under WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT. --Azurfrog (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metioned in BBC, USA Today for work done on Wikipedia and obit and life report in NYT...notability established. Adrianne passed away a week after her fall in Joshua Tree National Park, I assume the one reported in their press release on April 1, for the March 29th injury, though no name is mentioned.--MONGO 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- to people who are arguing for delete because of WP:ONEEVENT, what's the One Event that this article is supposed to be folded into? March 29, 2014 Joshua Tree Rock Climbing Accidents? A career's worth of work is not One Event under any reasonable reading of the term. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be redundant now, but I support several earlier arguments that the article should not require additional proof to meet notability guidelines simply because its subject's notability is related to her scholarship and activity on Wikipedia. Does it really make sense to cite Wikipedia policies as evidence that Wikipedia activity is not worthy of being cited? Troctar (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've !voted "keep" above, so this is a comment, but she now has obits in two major newspapers-of-record, the New York Times and L.A. Times. Her obits are primarily about her life and works, including prominently her activities on Wikipedia, not the manner of her death, so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. I think this is now conculsive proof of notability as per policy, and move for this AfD to be closed early. -- The Anome (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting a Wikipedia article about a person in the popular media critiquing Wikipedia absolutely sends the wrong message about the openness of Wikipedia. The issue of issue of how content is placed and vetted in Wikipedia is an important one and based on obituaries in NY Times and elsewhere, Wadewitz was an important figure in this discussion. In terms of credentials in digital humanities, Wadewitz was the Mellon Digital Scholarship Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Digital Learning + Research at Occidental College and a blogger on the digital humanities portal HASTAC (http://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2014/04/10/remembering-adrianne-wadewitz-scholar-communicator-teacher-leader). She is further an academic with a presence in the popular media (pre death) and I believe this alone makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.8.31 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. A variety of sources is already available, and I also found 2 published yesterday (23 Apr), which may or may not have already been mentioned.[29][30] While the subject may not have met WP:ACADEMIC, her academic achievements are noted as well as her activities as a Wikipedian. Hence WP:BIO1E does not apply. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, we need a biography about her in the GLAM and Outreach pages, given that she is on the cover of our brochure on how to edit, and has played such an important role in developing the encyclopedia. Are we really serious about promoting participation of women on this website? Djembayz (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but, yes, it's wrong to use her death as PR. That's why you want to delete. LonelyLaura (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you totally ignore her death, she is still a paradigm for working with WP. (I said keep above.) -- kosboot (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I came back just to voice my opinion. Yes, she is now most notable for her death in the light of all of the work she's done for wikipedia, but she was breaking ground before that. She should be recognized for her work. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has enough notability because of the many articles on her, whether abour Wikipedia, Wikimedia or scholarly articles. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know this lady but her notability is evident, see article L.A.Times 4/24/2014 "Scholar helped edit Wikipedia", admittedly I am not expert on WP guides but I have the authority of a daily user of WP for as many years as you reading this. Suggestion for understanding, look for examples in the sphere of rock musicians, some are notable if only as explanation or explanation informing the knowledge of the larger sphere, and look at others in their spheres. It seems this lady passes your test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangle001 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject seems to have been occasionally quoted by the media in Wikipedia-related matters, I have located zero coverage directly about the subject prior to her unfortunate passing. If someone can show me I'm wrong about this, I'll cheerfully delete my vote, but absent better sources this seems too much like Wikipedia reporting about itself. Townlake (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where in WP:GNG or other appropriate notability guidelines there is anything saying that it's relevant whether the date of publication is before or after the date of death. And also, consider in your answer how this would affect our articles on historical figures such as Fibonacci: can we only use published-before-death sources for them? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your question about coverage of historical figures is a straw man. This is a contemporary subject. So we're left with assessing makes this subject notable, which seems to be that she was deeply involved in this project and then generated news coverage through an unfortunate accident -- which was the only event that generated independent coverage specifically of her. Again, unless I'm wrong? If I'm wrong, please show me. Townlake (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, first of all, there was coverage about her in BBC and USA Today prior to her depth, although arguably not in-depth enough about her specifically. And secondly, most newspaper obituaries, and these ones in particular, are not really about the event of the death, the way a news story about a murder might be. They mention the event, briefly, but most of the content of the obituaries concerns the subject's life and work, the same as a newspaper profile of a living person would do. Additionally, there is nothing in WP:GNG about "assessing what makes this subject notable" and/or judging whether the basis for notability is something we consider worthy. What we should be assessing is purely how significant the sources are and how much depth of coverage of the subject our sources give. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The BBC and USA Today articles at the top of this AFD page quote her, but they don't cover her in a non-trivial way. And I don't think the obituaries place her in the public sphere to the point where an encyclopedia article is appropriate. That's no disparagement of the subject or her accomplishments, it's just an acknowledgment of the lack of coverage her work has received. Maybe someday that state of affairs will change. Townlake (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies my reading of WP:N. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stub. First, let me say that this article was created at perhaps the most inopportune time. I, like probably many of you, have the feeling that we're "scavengers fighting over the corpse" – distasteful in the extreme – but we're all here, so evidently fight we must. (Footnote: Perhaps a policy on a "waiting period" is needed, so articles can be considered with cooler heads...we're not a news source and it's clear that the WP:RECENTISM of this event is creating enormous problems.) The reasons for "keep" are obvious and unavoidable: that which has been noted is notable (here by NYT obit, among others). However, let me play devil's advocate. There's very little independent information in the NYT source (besides vital stats) on which to base an article. Most of it talks about her activities as a WP editor – information that necessarily comes from WP itself. In a very real sense, this is referentially circular. Quite a large fraction of the article is devoted to her dissertation, an aspect that is never found in other articles, so far as I know, because dissertations are minor works (with a few exceptions, like Koiter's). There's a lot discussion here about Adrianne's scholarly accomplishments in general, but the truth is that she was a post-doc, basically "just starting out". I see one established article in Lion and the Unicorn, an editorial, from 2009, a new article from a few months ago in Bookbird, and her dissertation, which is held by 1 institution, as you'd expect. These figures are very average for a junior scholar. Adrianne's WP "activism" (as I've seen it called above) is also not notable per se. We should also be very careful here to distinguish Wikipedia's situation, which is simple participation bias (a problem fixable by outreach), with actual gender discrimination (for example, being passed over for employment because of one's gender, as I have). A number of commenters above have confused these phenomena and therefore attribute more significance to this aspect of her work than it warrants. If the subject had been some other person that we could have considered in a disinterested manner, this discussion would be vastly more simple. As it currently stands, the article is still a WP:MEMORIAL and my guess is that it will stay this way, at least for a while. It is certain to be kept, but as time passes and cooler discussion prevails, it will very likely be pruned to a stub that observes simply that Adrianne was a scholar noted for her WP activities and who was killed in an accident. RIP. Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Quite simply, I can't see how we're meant to believe that multiple, major newspapers producing lengthy obituaries of her does not, in and of itself, pass the General Notability Guideline. They are substantial, lengthy pieces. I cannot see how this isn't enough to pass it, and consider the delete votes to have not checked the sources actually available. Non-notable people do not get lengthy New York Times obituaries, nor one from the other coast, in the Los Angeles Times. Part of her notability comes from her work with Wikipedia; however, we have plenty of sources, independent of both her and Wikipedia, to demonstrate that that's genuinely notable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep diff Article created at 2014-04-19T01:45:51, and at 2014-04-19T02:09:40 is marked with an AfD tag. Also at 2014-04-19T02:09:40 a deletion argument has been prepared and posted. Total time, 23 minutes, 49 seconds. This appears to be a game to see how fast an AfD can be posted. The article currently has 22 references, which shows that sources could have been found, in addition to the first three in the article that were already enough to establish that the world at large has indeed noticed this topic over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 April[edit]

Delete – Sadly, a tragedy that happens on Wikipedia does not necessarily make it notable outside of Wikipedia. Are we going to make an article about Cynthia Ashley-Nelson because of the death of User:Cindamuse? (Steven Rubenstein is another matter, though...) This seems to be strictly a Wikipedia fanboy article. WIkipedia is not a memorial. Epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That it' s a tragedy on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable; that this tragedy was covered with lengthy obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times do. Just because someone worked on Wikipedia, and gets some notability through that doesn't make them unnotable. C.f. Jimbo Wales, Essjay, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world; this will occasionally produce notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question -- "Are we going to make an article about Cynthia Ashley-Nelson" -- is the answer to the question about Adrianne Wadewitz. No, because Cindamuse is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Having articles in major newspapers identifies notability. That's the difference between the two. For our own memorials, in wikispace, we should honor both these individuals. For encyclopedia space, we write articles about notable people. BECAUSE once people read or hear about Wadewitz in some other forum, they are going to come to Wikipedia to read more about her. The article about Adrianne Wadewitz is not for her or her family, or our community -- it's for the readers. And for those of you who say "non-notable", I would love to know what you do with the evidence of users who attest on this page that they came to Wikipedia, from the NYT article, expecting an article about Wadewitz. --Lquilter (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both: Is the obituary the only NYT and LAT article about her? We can write a long, long list of the things she published online and accomplished in life, but until other reliable sources are provided for what she did when she was alive, it's still WP:MEMORIAL/OBITUARY. Suggest a rewrite at the very least, if not deletion. I know that the wounds from her death are still raw to the community, and I apologize, but several reliable sources about her life are also needed in addition to the ones about her death (the latter of which happens very often and isn't notable in itself). Otherwise, this is just a plain old obituary. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The fact that an encyclopedia is to be a comprehensive compendium of knowledge about everything runs counter to the "Notability" movement's rush to censor data that it deems to be unnoteworthy. This fine individual, who dedicated herself to her field and to the cutting edge of the dissemination of knowledge, is a fitting subject for this or any other encyclopedia. The fact that it may be "notability" that is the main argument for this article's deletion is an argument in itself for revisiting any policy with respect to "notability." Fellow editors, please keep Ms. Wadewitz's article for the sake of decency. Drboisclair (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The many and intense comments and emotions above (pro and con) reflect that including an aarticle about Adrianne Wadewitz serves at least 2 purposes. 1) It shows that Wikipedia contributors have the potential to make news (eg - like it or not, Walter Cronkite's death made news). 2) Wikipedia's development, history, and controversies at times are also newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunleight (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Sunleight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are multiple sources from more than one event. Being a Wikipedia editor does not overrule those sources. If she was a blogger and not a wikipedia editor then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Miyagawa (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could of course argue that a wikipedia editor is inherently un-notable, therefore any sources suggesting otherwise are clearly mistaken and must be discounted. Then there are no sources left and the subject is un-notable q.e.d. Who is going to AFD Jimbo then? Agathoclea (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there re sufficient number of sources to notability per WP:N Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion - close and re-open later Wadewitz passed away only recently, and here we are having a big wiki debate about her article. I think there's no good reason for this. We have lots of other articles to work on. Per IAR I proposed to close this and re-open it in one month, to give people time to come to terms with the loss (and perhaps for different sourcing to appear) - we could even just move the article to wiki space pending a final resolution so people can continue working on it. Either way out of respect for her, why not put this on the back burner and re-address later? Whether kept or deleted it doesn't need to be decided now. Let me know what you think - I haven't voted yet nor formed an opinion so am happy to just close it and re-open a month from now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First, I want everyone who voted Delete to know that I respect their opinions, and I want to encourage persons who may be reading this who may think that a Delete opinion is equated to anti-feminist bias to take the time to engage in discussion with those who expressed those opinions and understand the depth of some of those rationales. Having said that, I am leaning towards keep for this reason: Wikipedia itself is a notable subject; Concerns about anti-female bias within Wikipedia are a notable aspect of the Wikipedia phenomenon; and Adrianne Wadewitz (not just User:Wadewitz) was a significant figure in that aspect of Wikipedia's history. Having said that, I would like for users to consider Obi-Wan Kenobi's suggestion seriously; That we either archive the existing information somewhere or just leave it in article space and return to the question in a few months or so. KConWiki (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I second your suggestion to close the RfC and possibly re-open it later. It is a matter of human dignity.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strongly oppose moving this to Wikispace or other strange out-of-process behavior. We don't do this for articles about non-Wikipedians who have recently died, and who have received prominent newspaper obituaries. What makes Wikipedia editing so special that we should treat it any differently? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my suggestion was also made out of respect for friends and colleagues of Wadewitz who find themselves having to vote on notability of their colleague and weigh the issues at a time of grief. I don't care if it stays in article space I'm just suggesting we don't need to solve this right now, and a month or two of waiting might give a different perspective. What is different is that we've lost one of our own, hence my invocation of IAR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What IAR? Your proposal is a no consensus keep -- and then someone can renominate it. Which is within rules, except one supposes that you are proposing forcing a no consensus keep? That seems unnecessary dragging out to me, who never knew her, except for what I have read in the many RS about her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, this is absolutely not a proposal to close as no-consensus. I am proposing to put this whole nomination on hold, while making no judgement whatsoever as to the state of consensus - and then re-opening with all of the extant !votes intact and open for new ones in a months time, and then have an admin actually close and assess the full consensus. I'm invoking IAR because this discussion may be creating divisions and controversy amongst us during a time when many are still in mourning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then oppose IAR as uneeded. The article exists in a kept state on the Pedia. Apparently that will not change under IAR or usual procedure - unless the consensus is to delete but that seems most unlikely, given the sourcing. As for whether there are some who are too close to the subject, they should generally refrain from involvement, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2014 (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 and redirect to Bundy standoff. I am leaving a plausible redirect to Bundy standoff. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy militia[edit]

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

No such organization, supporters are not organized. Can find no reference that supports organization. References are not for a specific organization, but rather for a group of unrelated supporters. ~~Perhaps a merge to Bundy standoff.~~ reddogsix (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has enduring notability, historic value, and highly developed content with cites. Objecting to deletion and deletion tagging, because there are numerous reputable news organization cites^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] showing the validity of the title^[1]^[5]^[6]^[7] of this article, and cites showing the existence of the Bundy militia.^[2]^[1]^[5] Numerous videos, newspaper articles, and imagery exist documenting militia members signing up to join the militia.^[3] The contents of the article includes cites. Let wikipedia editors do their work in documenting and improving this article, don't squelch it in its infancy. Recommending removal of the deletion notice.Baleywik (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Direct quote from article in Los Angeles Times newspaper 24 April 2014 calling it "Bundy's militia".:

"Harry Reid, Nevada's senior senator and the Senate majority leader, branded Bundy's militia 'domestic terrorists,' while the state's other senator, Republican Dean Heller, called them 'patriots.' " ^[8] John M. Glionna, and Richard Simon (24 April 2014). "At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard". The LA Times. Retrieved 26 April 2014. Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More citations have been added to the article. Many of the references show the enduring notability and historic value of the subject. They also show the common use of "Bundy's militia", "Bundy militia", "Bundy ranch militia", and "Bundy's security force" to describe the subject. Whether you like or dislike the subject of the article (and we acknowledge that there is much emotional feeling among some editors), there is much proof and logic for the enduring notability of it, and validity as an entry in Wikipedia. Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the update on references now cited in the article: Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy, Vanessa (19 April 2014). "The Bundy militia, who are they?". KLAS TV Las Vegas News. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Flynn, Michael (16 April 2014). "Amazing footage captures Bundy's militia standoff with BLM & Police". The Independent, News, St. George Utah. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Macneal, Caitlin. "Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'". Talking Points Memo, TPM Media LLC. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Jimmy. "Bundy Militia Protester Advocates Women As Human Shields". The 405 Media. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
John M. Glionna, and Richard Simon (24 April 2014). "At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard". The LA Times. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
Pags, Joe. "Bundy Ranch Militia Considered Using Women As Human Shield". WOAI Radio. The Joe Pags Show, WOAI Radio. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Colmes, Alan. "Bundy Ranch Militia Considered Using Women As Human Shields". Liberaland. Alan Colmes, Liberaland. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Pennacchia, Robyn. "Charming Bundy Ranch Militia Dude Brags About Planning To Use Women As Human Shields". Death and Taxes Mag. Death and Taxes Magazine. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Associated Press. "Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy revels in dispute over land". SF Gate, Hearst Communications. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
Pleasance, Chris (18 April 2014). "Domestic terrorists. Senator Harry Reid brands Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters enemies of the US". The Daily Mail, Newspaper, UK. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Daniel Hernandez, and Joseph Langdon (13 April 2014). "Federal rangers face off against armed protesters in Nevada 'range war'". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Allen, Jonathan (17 April 2014). "Bundy Ranch Standoff Emboldens Militia Groups". Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Komenda, Ed (10 April 2014). "Militiamen make their presence felt in protest of BLM’s livestock grab". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Allen, Jonathan (17 April 2014). "After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?". Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Solodow, Joseph Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2010 p.160 "out of the phrase posse comitatus “the force of the county” arose our present use of posse for a group of men whom the sheriff calls upon in a crisis."
Marks, Kathy (1996). Faces of right wing extremism. Branden Publishing Company. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-8283-2016-0.
John Wallace, American Patriot Movement
The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences By Jane Parish
Right-wing Counterculture Uses Waco as Rallying Cry| Herald-Journal 24 April 1995
Salon.com Books | America's homegrown terrorists
Winerip, Michael (June 23, 1996). "Ohio Case Typifies the Tensions Between Militia Groups and Law". The New York Times.

Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted that during a recent half hour, the editor ‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, and blanked the entire infobox. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. We urge the restoration of the article to its pre-blanked state. The article is new, and it is a work in progress by multiple editors. If one requires better references, the addition of "citation needed" tags are preferable over indiscriminate blanking and removal of existing cites. Baleywik (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not blanked the article. Blanking means deleting all content. What I have done is to remove all content that was unsourced, poorly sourced, or that was blatant WP:OR. Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bundy standoff we really don't need two articles on the same topic in edit-war lockdown009o9 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff is an article about a 20 year legal dispute, although it contains some Bundy-related conflicts. The Bundy militia article is specifically about the Bundy militia movement organization itself. They are quite different things.Baleywik (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such organization exists. This is just a fork to put content while the main page has been locked down because of inappropriate attempts to edit war original research into the article. [31] Baleywik is also inappropriately canvassing on the Bundy standoff talk page. We need some more administrator coverage to snip these problems in the bud. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — 173.153.4.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or Merge with Bundy standoff. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bendy standoff. Ravensfire (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources cited use the phrase 'Bundy Militia' except the KLAS article, and that uses it only in its headline; it does not appear within the body of the text. No source that I could find (outside reddit & blogs) makes the explicit claim that there is an actual entity called 'The Bundy Militia'. I found no statements to that effect by any of the participants, not even from Cliven Bundy. No Official Document, no uniforms, no apparent continuance of the loose and informal coalition as the situation defuses. There is no such thing as The Bundy Militia. (Also, I'm afraid it must be noted that the main advocate above, User:Baleywik, is also the creator and primary author of the contested article. For this and other reasons I don't feel this editor's advocacy is entirely neutral in this case.) Eaglizard (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I found nothing in this article that merits inclusion in Bundy standoff, except perhaps the statement that Bundy "sent letters entitled "Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection" to county, state, and federal officials". Nearly all the facts in this article merely recap the existing 'standoff' article. This is why I do not support a merge.Eaglizard (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I originally AfD the article, I suggested a possible merge. However, as I look at the evidence and support, I believe a deletion is a better solution than a merge. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge The organization is not noit notable and appears mostly as response to the single event. Bundy doesn't appear to have any control or authority so the title is problematic as well. --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like a hitpiece specifically calculated to discredit. Likely violation of WP:TE -- Frotz(talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This info is already covered at Bundy standoff, and a merge into that article is impractical as this article is clearly biased for the Bundy folks. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such organization exists. Any encyclopedic content that has been added to the page should certainly be considered for Bundy standoff or perhaps Domestic_terrorism#Examples (depending on if the situation evolves into any bloodshed), but generally the article can only serve as a future lighting rod for edit wars and NPoV language. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale outlined by Baleywik. If that cannot be done, then merge the material with "Bundy standoff" as a last resort. The problems raised here should be resolved through the editing process and I do not see a valid basis for deletion of a subject that is without question worthy of note. Aranciataaa (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)— Aranciataaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I know Google is not definitive of anything, but still. There's only forty seven (47) hits for "The Bundy Militia". 47. Total. And only ONE of them is a cite-able source, the KLAS TV Las Vegas News report titled "The Bundy militia, who are they?", and that report does NOT contain the phrase "Bundy Militia" in it's text. There is no evidence that a "Bundy Militia" exists. How can a non-existent topic be notable? Eaglizard (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the most poorly-written article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and rife with non-neutral POV.75.163.143.115 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — 75.163.143.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I just checked that article and cleaned it up from all the blatant WP:NOR violations. After the cleanup there is nothing left there to be notable. Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blanking in progress - It has been noted that during a recent half hour, the editor ‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, and blanked the entire infobox. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. We urge the restoration of the article to its pre-blanked state. The article is new, and new articles are often complex works in progress, that build up references and refine wording over a few weeks or months. It is normal procedure to tag articles with appropriate tags such as "OR" or "citation needed" rather than blanking. Additionally, the AfD process forbids blanking. Baleywik (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the article through the AFD process. What I have done is to bring to bear editing policies of WP:V on the article, which was a total disaster when I encountered it with a multitude of WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY violations. You are welcome to continue editing the article if you abide by content policies. Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blanking in progress - It has been noted that the editor ‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has for the 2nd time, blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, blanked the entire infobox, and blanked every section title. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. Baleywik (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was initially going to advocate merging but after reading the Bundy standoff article, it looks like most of the pertinent, referenced and neutral information about the militia has already been incorporated in that article. So really the only course of action left is to delete this and recreate the title as a redirect to the main article about the standoff. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Corruption of this AfD Process - Due to ongoing blanking and edit warring by Cwobeel, it certainly appears that this AfD review process is being corrupted. When the references, cites, section structure, and other elements of an article in AfD are blanked, it unfairly unbalances and skews the article's AfD process. The questions of whether to Keep, Delete, Merge, etc., can not be honestly be considered while the article is under attack.Baleywik (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baleywik's multiple complaints about "blanking" (in reference to another editor's deletion of assorted article content that violates policy) are irrelevant (and disruptive) in this discussion, which is about deleting the article altogether. Fact is, there's no such organization as the Bundy Militia. And the article is crap. Flush it. Writegeist (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bundy standoff. There are a-lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments here, it is realated to the Bundy standoff though and as such deserves a mention there as it has the reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Update: Multiple WikiProjects and editors - Multiple editors are involved in editing the article. Various WikiProjects participants are involved, including WikiProjects peer reviews. This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Baleywik (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Terrorism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)(under peer review)
WikiProject Law Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject Nevada (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)

Baleywik (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator of the article, I have watched the arguments with interest. The basic idea behind this AfD is there is no formal militia, just a bunch of supporters that are gathered there. There is no formal organization. A number of people, newsgroups, etc. have started calling the supporters a "militia" - this does not create an organization. I can call a dog a cat, but my ignorance or misplaced analysis does not transform one thing into another. I have seen comments that the organization is "secretive" and "they have a list on paper of members, [but] they have not published it on the web." Perhaps, but the references that are included in the article are all from others not necessarily associated with the supporters or the alleged "militia" and those references do not support the idea of a formal association. I still see no evidence that this is nothing more than a group of supporters gathered there to do just that support the individual. reddogsix (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a n obvious case of WP:ADVOCACY. The only user opposed to the deletion, is also uploading purported symbols of this group, see for example: File:BundyMilitiaSymbol.png - Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any valid arguments for keep here. Your points are valid and even after this time, still are valid even with more news articles. Even at this point in time, there is contention among being called a "patriot group" or "militia". It's a giant mess and I think there might be a bit or two worth keeping, it certainly wouldn't qualify for it's own entry. It's also unclear in a couple of these sources whether they are actually using militia as described by this article. Right now, it's fast and loose with the term. Seola (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject matter is already covered sufficiently under Bundy standoff. There is no formal organization, nor any sources to indicate notability outside the standoff itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bundy standoff per Baleywik’s keep arguments, and the nom’s original merge alternative. I believe this is a keep, but decided that although there are sufficient RS for notability, it really needs to be in the standoff articles for context and there is overlap. So merge whatever isn't there already and make this a redirect.

1. There are at least three journalistic sources for Bundy Militia. Even the paper of record, The New York Times uses militia in its recent article, referring to Bundy as a symbol of their cause. Quote follows:

The crowds may be beginning to dwindle, but for much of the past two weeks, here at Mr. Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, the rancher has been a celebrity, drawing hundreds of supporters, including dozens of militia members, many carrying sidearms, and members of Oath Keepers, a militia group, who have embraced him as a symbol of their anger and a bulwark against federal abuse.— NY Times, 4-23-14

2. Organizations do not have to be formal, as some claim, to be notable. From a legal standpoint, unincorporated associations (or organizations) are just two or more people with a shared purpose. No uniforms are necessary. A prime example is Occupy Wall Street which is intentionally a decentralized, highly informal group without officers, directors, or bylaws, and is unregistered and unincorporated, and yet that organization is clearly notable by any criteria. The Wikipedia test for notability is if there are independent reliable sources, not the degree of structure. And there are sufficient RS as indicated by Baleywik in a long list of sources.

3. Further, blanking some 75% of the article, twice, during an ongoing AfD unfairly influences the AfD process.

4. And I think Knowkedgekid87 made a point with the JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.

— Becksguy (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bundy standoff - With the condition that any of this is salvageable. There is quite a bit of contention on even the existence of a formed militia (recognized or not) and and whether these sources are even valid. If any can be picked out for usefulness, it can be merged. I do not see, even with the list of sources included, anything pertinent or new. A coalition of militias may be more accurate since none of them actually joined forces but rather showed up for the same reason. This also runs contradictory with people there. Not everyone from militias were armed at this standoff, not everyone there was militia and none of them in different sources with interviews even remotely suggested working together for a purpose other than "defend Bundy" and even more so, while on the ground, all stated different purposes for being there. Some from one militia would interview with ready to meet anything with force versus another who said the government would have to shoot first. So even in one place, once there, they weren't in agreement on cause, methods or actions. If 10 churches show up at an anti-abortion rally, you don't call them a single church once they are there just because they have one cause in common. It may have some notability in a paragraph, but not enough or even remotely provable for a separate page. Wiki is fact based. Headlines are not always and the use of a headline as a source is dubious at best. Unless they designate themselves a single militia, I feel it doesn't mean any guidelines at all. I also have issues with the many, many violations of the page creator and the inability to discuss rationally or follow Wiki instruction. If this were to remain as a separate page, it would need a multitude of editors to remove bias, campaigning for the cause, OR and even canvassing violations. Personally, regardless of outcome of this, I recommend action against the page creator for repeated violations of Wiki's policy and I'd go as far to say spamming. Seola (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seola: Merging implies a redirect, unless you are pressing for a merge and delete. Keeping a redirect without deleting and salting the deleted article, will mean that the concept of a "Bundy militia" (which is non-existent) will remain in the pedia. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a remarkable and newsworthy action -of global significance - whatever your politics - well at least keep till we see what emerges out of the movement - if it fizzes into an anti climax may be then merge. The court case is old and is also similar to other campaigns that people have had with the government over taxes and fees - but here we have people coming out from across the country; people are taking up arms against the US govt - not seen since 1865 - or perhaps if we are thinking of the North American continent - the North West rebellion of 1885 in Canada. I dont say it is admirable but it is highly newsworthy - also consider that there would be wikipedia articles if it were happening in Eastern Europe or the Middle EastBebe Jumeau (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order - People fighting the government isn't exactly unprecedented: violent examples would be Ruby Ridge, Waco siege, Timothy McVeigh. There's plenty of small militias out there who've had their own run-ins with the law, they just didn't draw as much attention. This particular example is already well covered under Bundy standoff, there's no reason to have a separate article on the ad-hoc militia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1. Despite claims that this organization does not exist, one of the bedrock Wikipedia policies for inclusion is not what some people believe, or want to believe, to be the truth about the existence, or not, of the Bundy Militia, but rather that organization's verifiability by using independent, reliable sources.

2. There are three RS that report on this situation, using the term Bundy Militia: The LA Times, KLAS-TV, and the Southern Utah Independent, among the sources listed above by Baleywik. The LA Times is an unimpeachable mainstream high quality journalistic reliable source. And that was the source that convinced me to !vote for merge.

3. Further, the LA Times reports that there is a leader, camp commander Jerry DeLemus, and the area where the Bundy Militia is bivouacked is named Camp Tripwire. What else do you want; a charter, TO&E, bylaws, or certificate of incorporation?

4. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of organization. Suppose a group of church ladies, from different churches, get together to hold a monster bake sale to support the local animal shelter that needs funds. That organization is ad-hoc, highly informal, unstructured, and short lived, but it is an organization nevertheless (although almost certainly not notable for Wikipedia).

5. Even if the LA Times didn't do a feature piece on Bundy’s Militia, it would still exist, despite that apparently some people wished it didn’t.

6. This issue is a highly polarizing one, involving multiple viewpoints, agendas, and politics. The more I read and think about this, the more I'm sure that this should not be a separate article, for reasons of duplication, and potential POV, so I agree with all those that !voted Merge (as primary or alternative) and the keep arguments that also apply to merge. Merging is an editorial process and all the usual editing policies and conventions on content apply.

—Becksguy (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that militiamen didn't come to Bundy's aid; they did. But it is not a "Bundy's militia". That is at the core of this discussion. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel has made the relevant point. There is no organization known as "Bundy's militia," just a bunch of folks who showed up once Bundy made TV (and most of whom dispersed after the initial standoff & Bundy's racist comments). The "bake sale" argument is no more an organization than this is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:22, 2 May 2014 (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.

^ ^a ^b ^c Murphy, Vanessa (19 April 2014). "The Bundy militia, who are they?". KLAS TV Las Vegas News. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ ^a ^b Flynn, Michael (16 April 2014). "Amazing footage captures Bundy's militia standoff with BLM & Police". The Independent, News, St. George Utah. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ ^a ^b Komenda, Ed (10 April 2014). "Militiamen make their presence felt in protest of BLM's livestock grab". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ Daniel Hernandez, and Joseph Langdon (13 April 2014). "Federal rangers face off against armed protesters in Nevada 'range war'". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ ^a ^b ^c Macneal, Caitlin. "Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'". Talking Points Memo, TPM Media LLC. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ Z, Jimmy. "Bundy Militia Protester Advocates Women As Human Shields". The 405 Media. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ Allen, Jonathan (17 April 2014). "After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?". Retrieved 19 April 2014.
^ John M. Glionna, and Richard Simon (24 April 2014). "At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard". The LA Times. Retrieved 26 April 2014.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myla Sinanaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Myla Sinanaj

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

Performing in a sextape, friendship with an athlete, and the digital release of one musical performance, do not constitute notability, so far as I can ascertain, and I've seen little more than passing mention anywhere -- even less from reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect If it's to be kept at all, this article should be merged with and redirected to Kris Humphries, the only source of notability for Ms. Sinanaj. Bustter (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kris Humphries#Personal life. Agree, no independent notability claimed, and it is WP:NOTINHERITED. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my concern with merging/redirecting is one of WP:WEIGHT. They "dated" (though she claims they were never together) so what would we merge there? The tabloid claims that they did and her subsequent denial? That's not the stuff of an encyclopaedia. Surely we're not expected to list every person he may or may not have had dinner at Applebees with. She's not notable and their "relationship" (or not) isn't notable in the context of his biography either. Stalwart111 06:35, 3 May 2014 (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.