< 19 April	21 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 keep. No prejudice against possible rename or merge as suggested by 23.28.85.229 . Olaf Davis (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black cat analogy[edit]

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

This article has been completely unsourced for almost a year, and not because of laziness. There is no way to source this. Googling "black cat analogy" gives nothing besides the following viral image on various content aggregators. Being mentioned in r/atheism posts does not confer notability. ZigSaw 23:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced OR essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. If a couple of WP:RS's can be found, then we could merge it into List of Internet phenomena, but that's a big "if", at least from my attempts at finding any. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: With the new sources (only two, but reliable sources nonetheless), it seems to be fine now, and a lot more than just the viral image. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references to this in reliable sources. What matters is discussions of black cats, not google hits for the specific phrase "black cat analogy", and discussion occurs in several books.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The first reference in particular has a detailed discussion of the analogy; the second traces it to Ernest Gellner. Being unreferenced or unsourced is not grounds for deletion if sources exists. The article could be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per colapeninsula Greg Bard (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Colapeninsula has shown, sources definitely exist. Moswento ^talky 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess Colapeninsula's established some degree of verifiability. However, it's not really established why this analogy is notable as opposed to the hundreds of others used by philosophers on a regular basis. Moreover, most of the sources that are now in the article are tangentially relavant at best; it might be more apt to move it to Cat metaphors in philosophy or merge with a related article. 23.28.85.229 (talk) 04:37, 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 speedy deleted as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. — Scott • talk 23:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SheharyarMirza[edit]

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

An article about a supposed singer that seems to be a hoax. It existed here for a while (just deleted as U5). Every single reference other than the self-published ones are either non-verifiable, a dead link or doesn't even mention the subject. The alleged hit song mentioned "Pata Chalgea" is, as far as I can tell, the work of another Indian performer. The talk page even includes a fake merge notice from an album article that has never existed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is a hoax, a copy of Imran Khan (singer) with names changed, and it has been deleted before - including after a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Sheharyar Mirza (singer), so I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a recreated article. I've also reported the user as a sock puppet of User:KingSheharyarMirza. --bonadea contributions talk 22:48, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cari Russell[edit]

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

A nicely written article, but the subject does not fulfill notability criteria. Works for a non-notable random Canadian theater company (which does not have an article), and none of the cited sources in the article are actually about Ms. Russell. Bringing to AFD for opinions. GlassCobra 21:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added another source to the article. Russell's theatrical career has been covered by a variety of news sources. This coverage seems to me to be sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What this article lacks is not sourcing, but any substantive evidence of notability. The standard for actors and actresses is not that anyone is automatically entitled to an article just because you can add a few sources demonstrating that they exist, which is all this article actually does. Rather, for an actor or actress to be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, you have to be able to demonstrate a substantive reason why a broad range of Wikipedia readers should be interested in reading or learning about her: roles in films or television series that have had national or international distribution, winning or being nominated for a notable major acting award (Genie, Oscar, Tony, Dora, etc.), and on and so forth. And that relevance has not been demonstrated here; as written, this is little more than a prosified version of a theatrical résumé for a local stage actress who has no substantive notability outside of her own city — and even the production which I'm presuming got her an article in the first place (going by the creator's edit history and the photo that's been selected for the infobox) is one in which she played a background "chorus" role rather than a starring one. And furthermore, while the sources certainly mention her name in passing, none of them are about her in any way substantive enough to get her past WP:GNG. So all in all, nothing here makes her a topic who warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality test[edit]

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

100% original research. No references for the term as it is described here beyond wikipedia mirrors and derivations. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who is correct, or if it can be sourced to at least one source, then merge to The Age of Spiritual Machines as a valid sub-topic. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, I cannot find this subjects existance anywhere on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 23:26, 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 delete. I have moved the Guardian reference over to Paul Scally as suggested. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Liptrott[edit]

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

I apparently created this article in my early days on WP (although I have no specific recollection of doing so :-P). Eight years on I don't believe the subject meets notability requirements. He is a football fan who was banned from his team's home stadium for a few years after a dispute with the club's chairman over, well, it was never actually made clear, and, erm, that's it basically. IMO he doesn't meet WP:GNG and the article probably falls under WP:BLP1E (although even the one event didn't really get significant coverage). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails GNG and BLP1E. Giant Snowman 20:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG fails. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 17:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pers GS, nothing even to merge, this is a minor disagreement in the grand scheme of things over a domain name, hardly a particularly notable event. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge to Paul Scally where he is briefly mentioned. While there is no need to expand the actual mention there, the Guardian citation in this article is probably more reliable than the citations given for it there (and indeed any of the other citations in that article). PWilkinson (talk) 15:12, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Barnes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This biographical article does not cite any references/sources for verification and does not meet the BLP guidelines for notability. IPadPerson (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused: this is not a BLP article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect whatever is not original research into the parent article, unless there are independent sources which discuss this character in this detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I originally voted to keep this. But if no further sourcing is going to happen, then I change my mind. — Wylie pedia 08:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:CAWylie, I have been doing so. Tiller54 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's only been a month since the last AFD, which closed noting that the character was highly notable. There hasn't been much work done to the article yet but I've begun doing so now. Tiller54 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve as per Tiller54 It's not been barely improved since the last AFD, Anyway It's not perfect but since Tiller's working on it I say keep. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator is not aware of what he/she is nominating. This is not BLP. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:06, 29 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, withdrawn by nominator (NAC). No such user (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Party (Serbia)[edit]

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

Nothing other then a link to the official website-unless if someone is willing to make this article sometime who is familiar with this subject. Wgolf (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable party led by a very big cheese in Serbian politics. The article is admittedly pretty rubbish but the answer is editing not deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I figured-but since I know nothing about Serbian politics I was not sure. Surprise nobody noticed this. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my specialist subject either to be honest but I'm sure somebody who knows more about this (and can read Serbo-Croat) could turn out a decent article on this party. Keresaspa (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep, close the AFD, allow editors to develop Wikipedia. Sure, tag whatever you wish. But AFDs on notable topics seem not helpful to developing Wikipedia, they seem to throw a wrench into it, instead, IMHO. (Copy of what i just wrote about another organization AFD.) --do ncr am 02:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure what to tag this with-since there was nothing when I tagged it other then a website-which I was thinking that it would be okay to put it then. So I change to keep.Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, then this AFD should be closed, as nominator changes to "Keep" and the only other comments are "Keep". Wgolf, i think this means that you should have found some other tag, maybe just ((expand)) or ((refimprove)), rather than opening an AFD. An AFD should be only where you have done work per wp:BEFORE and seriously believe the topic is not valid for a wikipedia article. It should n't be merely a call for others to develop an article that needs work. Cheers, --do ncr am 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator the article looked like this when it was nominated, having effectively no content. It's a working stub now though, albeit one that would certainly beneift from the expand tag. Keresaspa (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, not that it will make a big difference, I think we all have had it where we have that one article we put a AFD on that isn't one. Ha ha. Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fida Hussain Durrany[edit]

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

I don't believe this passes the notability guidelines for individuals. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Thoroughly nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It lacks sources but that isn't my concern; I think this article is a prank. It says the guy is famous for fighting a tiger. This edit in particular seems like a joke. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:BIO and has no sources.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Toby[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, and reads like WP:PROMO. No in text references at all, just a list of blogs and press releases at the end. The article's main contributor appears to have a paid conflict of interest. mikeman67 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if he is notable, there's nothing salvageable here. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see what he's done is more than the avarage agent. This page would have to be gutted and re-assembled to create an article. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have to agree with the views expressed above. There appears to be a conflict of interest and he appears to be merely a run of the mill agent. Finnegas (talk) 14:01, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Brazil relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as the last AfD was no consensus, but fails WP:GNG. There really isn't significant coverage just factoids. Diplomatic recognition can be covered in 1 line in foreign relations article.the common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". the fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. the claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government. And 4 of the sources relate to this happiness index and 1 conference. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge. Useful, verifiable, encyclopedic information. Easily meets GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. So telling people that trade is virtually nothing and you can't get direct flights between the 2 countries makes relations notable? LibStar (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird argument. The whole wikipedia exists because it is useful. Yes it is a reason. And yes the fact that you cant get direct flight is a fact which makes these relations notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" And yes the fact that you cant get direct flight is a fact which makes these relations notable" what a weird comment, that is really pushing it for notability... I can't get a direct flight from Nauru to Luxembourg and trade is almost non existent, using your reasoning this makes Luxembourg-Nauru relations notable. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this fact makes these relations notable because it contributes to WP:GNG, in the part about sourcing. Somebody outside wikipedia decided to mention this fact thinking it was important for public to know. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how does virtually no trade and having to fly through another country actually establish notability of these relations? would you concede that Luxembourg-Nauru relations is a worthy article as well? LibStar (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:SYNTH. These are just random facts brought together to suggest a notable diplomatic relationship that simply isn't there. The fact that one country's diplomat might sit two tables away from the other's diplomat at dinner because they happen to be members of the same international organisation has zero to do with notability. There's nothing that couldn't be mentioned in either country's foreign relations articles. That's said, I can't imagine any of these "facts" would be mentioned - they wouldn't even be relevant there. The trade relationship is, "in some years even non-existent". And yet this "non-existent" relationship has generated enough coverage to be considered notable? I don't think so. Stalwart111 06:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "random facts": these are the facts of BB relations. Neither there is SYNTH, i.e., no new conclusions are drawn. "Two tables way" is a red herring argument. The relations between the two countries do exist, and wikipedia readers are entitled to know basic facts: when they started, how they progress, who are the ambassadors etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The synthetic conclusion is right there in the title - that these random non-notable events and factoids add up to a notable diplomatic relationship between two countries that don't actually have much of anything to do with each other. Ever. The "relations" exist only insofar as both countries do and their respective diplomats might once have had a drink in the same bar or were once standing behind one another in the cafeteria at the UN. The proper way of covering these things (though, again, I can't see any reason we would with regard any of the "facts" in question) would be to have them mentioned in the respective "foreign relations of X" articles. If it turns out they share more than a civil head-nod in the corridors, then articles like these are justified. Stalwart111 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a miscommunication regarding the term "diplomatic relations". My position is that DR is an objective fact which exists regardless wikipedian's opinions. It is a binary variable: either DR officially exists or not. Moreover, it is an important indicator of the standing of a state: either it has any diplomatic relations or not. Therefore I consider this kind of fact important enough to be included in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, both countries have diplomatic relations and we (quite rightly) have articles to cover both country's diplomatic relations (Foreign relations of Bhutan and Foreign relations of Brazil). But having foreign relations in general does not confer notability on every combination of random-random relations between two countries. The issue is not whether each country has a foreign affairs program or not (clearly they both do), but whether this relationship between these two countries is notable. There is nothing to suggest they should be automatically notable, in fact an assessment of similar AFDs on an WP:OUTCOMES basis would suggest a great many of these random-random relations articles are not notable without some formal diplomatic activity. If particular facts are worth including then I have no objection to them being including in each country's foreign relations article. What I object to is someone collecting collecting those unrelated parts and suggesting a formal, diplomatic whole which simply doesn't exist. Stalwart111 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like it falls under the spirit (if not the letter) or WP:NOTCASE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Cone on, colleagues, do you really suggest that relations between two states are less notable than next best aspiring pornstar? If you think that there is not enough info for an independent article, the content may be merged somewhere; to delete is a disservice to wikipedia's "spirit (if not the letter)". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my argument refers to OTHERSTUFF? How it is related to my proposal of merging instead of deleting? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a red herring! But since you asked - yes, the biography of a genuinely notable pornographic actor is more worthy of an article here that the invented diplomatic relationship between two states where the majority of the citizens from each country would struggle to find the other on a map. Many of those pornographic actors can be found in each and every local video shop, including those in the two countries in question perhaps. Stalwart111 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about red herrings and other tricks: I was not speaking about "genuinely notable" pornstar. I see quite a few deletion discussions where someone goes out of themselves to promote this years' deflorated starlet. Now, "invented relationship" - this is plain false. The relationship does exist according to official documents. It is a noble goal of wikipedia to provide info which is not readily available in every local videoshop or, say in Encyclopedia Britannica. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I am not talking about info about a dog next door. We are talking official country info. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then those, too, should be deleted. "According to official documents" (plural) is a stretch. They signed a single joint communiqué in 2009 while their respective foreign ministers were in New York for a UN meeting. Bhutan has similar "relations" with at 23 other countries, just in Europe. That is the only source that exists to substantiate any sort of formal diplomatic relationship between the two. Want to mention that single document in either country's foreign relations article? Go for it. But a single document surely isn't enough to extrapolate into a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reason given in the previous AfD: I don't see how this violates WP:GNG. It has a significant amount of independent and reliable sources to back it up. Just because it's not a strong relationship doesn't mean it's not worthy of being described. The article in no way leads people to think the relations are bigger than what they are. Granted, it's an unusual article, but it complies with the notability guidelines. Pikolas (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. At the moment this "relationship" is substantiated by one document, the signing of which received only coverage from those involved in its signing. In effect, we're discussing whether that document (given it is the only thing constituting "relations" here) is notable enough in its own right to justify an article. And it's not an "odd" or "unusual" article - hundreds of these nonsense diplomati-spam articles have been created, many by a prolific sock-puppeteer a few years ago. Stalwart111 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Who created what and when and why has no relation to the discussed article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG with plenty of reliable and official sources. The purpose of the article is to describe the relations between these two states. That these relations are sparse is no reason to delete. The Steve 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - upon a source review, squeaks by as meeting WP:N. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who serials by setting[edit]

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

as per discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Proposed move of List of Doctor Who serials by setting. it is primarily in-universe and original research. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that this article fails to fall inside the scope of Wikipedia (WP:Not) - chiefly too in-universe. While there are valid ways the settings and time periods depicted in the broadcast Doctor Who episodes may be approached such as prose text on the way the settings may have been chosen (Bob Holmes doing a medieval story at Terrance Dicks request), presented and how they were produced, I do not believe there are Reliable Sources outside fan continuity efforts that treat it in this way. And that - since the mixture of settings and time periods is an accretion of efforts of many individuals down the years - making such an organized list is a mixture of OR and SYNTH. The current list tries to reference facts not stated on-screen by making the links between known history and similar events presented in the fictional setting. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article can only be achieved through WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is so bad that it deserves somebody to go back in time and prevent it from ever existing in the first place. — Scott • talk 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There has been much effort put into this page and I want to acknowledge that and I hope its contents can be taken to an appropriate fan wiki. However, I agree with the above comments: I cannot see how this article has any place on Wikipedia given its in-universe perspective, its original research and its synthesis. Indeed, there simply isn't any way for this article to meet basic Wikipedia criteria of WP:RS and WP:V unless it wholesale copies material from external sources like Parkin's Ahistory (which would then be a massive copyright violation!). Bondegezou (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete A great addition to a Wikia, but it's just inappropriate here doktorb _words^deeds 05:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ridiculously confusing, and can't really see the purpose it - other than for fans to spot continuity errors (eg "hey x is set before y, so why does x mention y?") 94.195.107.134 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and offer to Tardis Data Core for transwiki. I already suggested this in the discussion at Wikiproject Doctor Who. G S Palmer (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst I understand the reasoning of the other participants in this discussion, I suspect that it is flawed. I agree with the remarks that as it stands this article is too "in universe" I believe it might be re-cast in a more satisfactory manner. I do not, however, find the article to be original research. If our article on A Tale of Two Cities says that the story is partly set in 1775 this is not original research, but merely applies a date mentioned in the text, or uses a date looked up from actual historical events described in the text. I thus do not find a breach of WP:OR. Further, I do not find that there is a breach of WP:SYNTHESIS, because there doesn't seem to be any actual attempt to advance a "particular position": the information is presented as neutrally as possible given the constraints of chronological order. As for verifiability, I don't see an overall problem. There may be problems with particular items in this article, but generally if an episode of the show says or clearly demonstrates that it is set in year X then this should be taken at face value, just as we take at face value that the events of '68 are set in 1968. We don't require a third party to assert this for us. Similarly, it seems reasonable to take the view that, unless there is an unreliable narrator, the text itself is a reliable source for dating itself. Although there are certainly weaknesses with this article I don't find the current case against it to be strong enough. RomanSpa (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first entry is an example of Synthesis (definition: [combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources") - Castrovalva ("Event One") c. 13.75 billion BCE with reference to the BBC website guide for the story. The reference does not give a date nor does [a probably fallible] transcript of the episode. An editor has taken the story's statement about heading towards "the big bang" and a scientific prediction of the date and joined them together to create that line. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a quick glance suggests that a majority of entries involve some degree of synthesis. There are some entries were there is a clear unambiguous dating given, but then I would refer to WP:NOT/WP:DISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIR. Why should we have an article with such a list? Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already indicated, there are certainly problems with individual items in this article, but this is not a reason to delete the whole article. By all means, if you think this article could be improved by deleting (for example) the "Castrovalva" item then please do so. The key point about WP:SYNTHESIS, it seems to me, is not just that material from more than one source must be combined, but that this must be done in such a way as to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". It seems to me that this isn't happening here - all that has been done is some rather tedious clerical work. Do I find the article "indiscriminate"? On balance, probably not. It's certainly more information than most people will ever need, but so is our article on [insert your favorite obscure hobby or interest here :-)]. If anything, I feel the article has been assembled with care and discrimination - though it's a subject that I know little about, I can tell when an article's been thought about carefully by its editors - and it serves a purpose that a simple category would not. RomanSpa (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment The inherent problem though, is that too many stories are deliberately vague about dating, and there are several contradictory statements. The entire UNIT era for example is a mess of contradictory things (40 years after the 1920s in one, after the cold war in another). Then there's the RTD era where stories can only be sorted in relation to each other - and once you try and shift in Sarah Jane adventures, it's impossible to get them all to work. You just cannot come up wit ha consistent thing, because one simply does not exist. 149.254.218.126 (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke from orbit: From the 2010 AfD:

This is a terrible article. It's a really terrible article. Since its inception, the article has suffered from original research problems because some stories cannot be given a definitive dating (that fact is notable in itself!), and we attempt to definitively date them anyway. The references aren't really references either; they're footnotes containing a lot of equivocating and uncertainty and general editorial statements that we prohibit for a very good reason. Worse, the article actually contradicts reliable sources, and that's a conscious decision done between 2007 and today, because I remember citing the 63-89 stories to reliable sources. I also do not think any amount of cleanup would solve the inherent synthesis and OR problems in this article. This article would be better on a project that allows original research, but not on Wikipedia.

Yes, don't demolish the house, but also don't keep buttressing it when the mortar disintegrated after five days (mostly because the "mortar" was a mixture of Angel Delight and super glue). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the previous AfD to our attention (and there was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nomination) which concluded "no consensus"). That first AfD concludes, "Let’s be clear that as it currently stands the article does violate our policies, and as such it must be improved. But it seems appropriate to give the article creators time to source the article, and if the article is not satisfactorily sourced within, say, six months, that the matter can be brought again to AfD, with reference to the conclusion of this AfD." Over 4 years later and the problems identified in that AfD ("the article violates WP:PRIMARY [...] The bulk of the information has been put together not from reliable sources, but from direct observation of the episodes, and speculation is part of that observation.") largely remain. (Wikipedia policy has evolved over time and I also think the leniency explicitly shown in that first AfD isn't seen today. Maybe that's a bad thing, maybe it's a good thing.) Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Engineering Development and Research[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. (Note that the "impact factors" listed on the journal's website and that were mentioned in the article are fake, journal is not listed in any Thomson Reuters database and hence has no impact factor). Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Says it "will provide" yet fails to have provided anything whatsoever. Non-notable, might be faked overall as per nom and additional research the panda ₯’ 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of 'might be notable someday'. Definitely not today though and unlikely anytime very soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Cusack[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable DJ, only source is not reliable, and thus fails WP:BLP requirements and should have therefore remained deleted after PROD. the panda ₯’ 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, can find nothing other than routine listings &c.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a heck of a lot of WP:OR on here. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources for there to justify an article here. mikeman67 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 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 merge to List of communist parties in India. This is also a procedural close per WP:SK1, because the nomination is only suggesting merging, a non-deletion action. Ultimately, the entire consensus here is to merge. If desired, a name change as suggested by User:Carrite can occur independently of the AfD process. Regarding User:Mikeman67's notion that the page should be deleted without a redirect, this is unlikely to be feasible per Wikipedia's attribution rules relative to a merge occurring (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Since both articles have revision histories dating back for years, a WP:HISTMERGE is unlikely to be performable. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various Communist/Leftist Parties in India[edit]

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

Merge into List of communist parties in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge though this doesn't really need an AfD as far as I can see. Just WP:BEBOLD and do it. Keresaspa (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Obviously no reason to maintain this page when there's already a list of communist parties, and I'd think this qualifies for a PROD at least after a content merger. But the page should still be deleted, without a redirect, considering the awkwardly written page title. mikeman67 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the right answer, with a renaming to List of communist and leftist parties in India. This is an extremely useful navigational index list, under no circumstances should it be deleted. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 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 Procedural close. Page in question was a redirect, not an article for deletion. The disambiguation page it pointed to contains only "Black Arrow" topics. Carried out the move as a technical move request. JHunterJ (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Arrow (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I marked this for speedy before, but since the template has been removed after some days, i ll try it here.

At the moment, there are three intertwined Black Arrow-pages; Black Arrow (for the British carrier rocket), Black arrow (the current main-disambiguation page), and Black Arrow (disambiguation) (which leads to Black arrow). My idea is, to delete the third, THIS page Black Arrow (disambiguation), to afterwards move Black arrow to (the now-deleted) Black Arrow (disambiguation). Regards, Gott (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This belongs in WP:Rfd. Frankly, I don't see the point of it all. Either way is okay, and leaving the status quo is less work. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Toy Orchestra[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm tempted to just say 'Notable band that passes WP:BAND', but...these are pretty well known and there's plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Just a brief Google search found The Guardian, Birmingham Post, Birmingham Mail, Time Out Hong Kong, The Wire, and these books: [7], [8], [9]. The band's website also indicates further coverage from The Wire, plus Zero Tolerance. I'm sure there's more out there.--Michig (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Michig. The article currently looks a mess/advert and nothing seems to indicate any real notability, but the coverage in The Wire should be enough on its own. Didn't really want to nominate this, TBH, after seeing them live at Supersonic some years back! Happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on my todo list to improve, but might be a while before I have time. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 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. This is a close one, but there are several sources that the "delete" !voters have failed to refute completely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hitit Computer Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Flat Out let's discuss it 01:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Web search turns up with limited relevant results. As per nom said it fails WP:CORP. ///EuroCarGT 02:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, article fails WP:CORP. Randor1980 (talk•contributions) 13:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not interested enough in this one to research it fully, but since this is a firm based in Turkey, try searching for "Hitit Bilgisayar". There appear to be a number of newspaper articles etc., mostly in Turkish, of course. —SMALL JIM 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company complies with requirements in Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for organizations and companies. It is stated in the guidelines that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article includes references to independent major travel industry news websites and reliable, globally known organization websites. The article should be kept as the company is notable based on Wikipedia guidelines. Svenjka 14:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)— Svenjka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment the article doesnt have substantial independent coverage. The only meaningful source is this one, the rest are minor mentions or directory results. Flat Out let's discuss it 15:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the precedents set by similar (aviation software company) articles. One example I have accessed through the "See also" section of Hitit Computer Services is this one. Article history shows that it had a similar WP:CORP deletion proposal for non-notability, however the dispute was lifted when several industry-specific references were added (even though some of those references are broken links). I believe it is only fair that the same criteria (industry-specific coverage) for notability should apply in this case as well. Xasf (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Xasf, the article Navitaire was never nominated for deletion. a Prod Template is not the same thing and it can't be used as a comparison with this discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, thanks Flat Out for pointing it out. In this case, I hope we can still agree on applying the same notability criteria for both articles and accept or reject industry-specific coverage as a valid source. I feel it should be valid on both cases from what I have gathered by reading references from the articles as well as conducting some web searches on my own. Xasf (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Xasf the notability criteria is WP:CORP. Which sources do you believe meet the criteria under this guideline? Flat Out let's discuss it 10:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a 2 page coverage about the company and an interview with their CEO in Forbes Turkey magazine. The article was by Erdinc, Ersun (1 August, 2012). "Suya Konan Turna". Forbes Turkiye, p. 104, 105. Svenjka 11:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flat Out, I think there are a couple of things we have to take into account for both cases, however I will focus on this article to avoid triggering a WP:LINKEDIN reaction. It seems to me that the article is related to an entity that is notable (with numereous independent sources as per WP:CORP#Independence_of_sources to satisfy the "multiple sources for non-substantial coverage" requirement of WP:CORP#Depth_of_coverage), albeit within a specific field. This may cause some ambiguity with regards to WP:CORP#Audience and cast doubt to the overall notability, however I would like to point out that while the audience is industry-specific, the publications / sources are global and thus should satisfy the requirements. I believe the notability is further reinforced by the awards provided by such global instutitions.

On the other hand, I would also like to remark that the references have room for improvement and would like to invite the author to provide further sources to alleviate doubts, if possible. Update: I have just received a revision conflict while submitting and noticed that Svenjka already provided further references from Forbes. Xasf (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Flat Out and Xasf more references have been included in the article including Forbes Turkiye magazine and Milliyet, a nationwide daily newspaper with over 160,000 daily readers. Svenjka 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Other independent sources needed--Teo Pitta (talk) 08:10, 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) 08:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claims of notability, no independent sources , only press-release kind of stuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to remind my comment above that more references have been included in the article including Forbes Turkiye magazine and Milliyet, a nationwide daily newspaper with over 160,000 daily readers. These are not press releases, but articles covering the company in depth. Svenjka 08:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all due respect, Svenjka, your characterization of Milliyet is absolutely correct, but that article is a warmed over press release, as a simple reading of it will verify. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:06, 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. Although several editors have argued against deletion, none of them have substantively addressed the concerns of those arguing for deletion - namely that of significant coverage in reliable sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wrathell[edit]

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

Deleted and restored PROD. My rationale for filing the PROD is "Non-notable artist behind non-notable movement. Lack of sourcing is due to dearth of coverage." I stand behind that rationale, and also add that the article is clearly promotional, and appears to have a COI author. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

While some artists and the art movements they are in have more coverage, that does not mean Wrathell and the Ultra-Renaissance do not produce art that is of high quality. One of Wrathell's works was referenced in January of 2006 by The Chicago Tribune when they reviewed a group show of art at The Art House in Oak Park, Illinois. Wrathell has had shows at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, at 4-Star Gallery in Indianapolis....(http://www.4stargallery.com/), Coldfish Gallery in Brooklyn, NYC, New York, and a few galleries in Metro Detroit where he is from and now resides. To say an entry about an artist and/or their art movement is promotional seems to be an opinion only. It is imperative for an art movement's rationale to be explained, so if that is going to be called promotional, then no art movements should be listed on Wikipedia whatsoever. It seems like a classic Catch 22. The same goes for an entry about an artist, really. If someone want to edit a bit to take the seeming promotionalisness out of this entry, I would be curious to see the result. Without stripping it of facts, that is. As far as high quality references, there are some of high quality. Sowff (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff[reply]

Comment: On his userpage, User:Sowff claims to be Mike Wrathell. If that is the case, participating in this AfD would constitute a WP:COI, as would his earlier activity on the article under discussion. — Gwalla | Talk 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue who Sven Manguard is, or what makes him think he is an art critic, but as managing editor for Issues and Alibis Magazine for the past 14 years I have often used Mike's art in the magazine to illustrate various articles both artistic and political. I also own several of his artworks which are displayed in my office and my home. Ernest Stewart — 68.61.70.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Sven didn't claim to be an art critic, he merely claimed that the existing article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mike Wrathell best known as a Pluto-Hugging caricature artist. His intergalactical characters are special - they're addictive. You'll need to inquire about the story behind each one but be careful - curiosity killed the cat! Virginiaerdie (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Virginia — Virginiaerdie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not very good at all this code stuff. Trying to add a reference to Wrathell's artwork about Ashcroft. This is the link. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-27/entertainment/0601270197_1_censored-showcase-art-art-institute. If it looks funny or is not there, please add it. Thanks. Sowff (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dry facts would appear to be as follows:
- Article lacks sufficient sources to support notability.
- A search for such sources came up dry. Primary source found (documentary on subject) is by a person related to the subject in a way that would cast doubt on source’s neutrality (she is listed as part of the ultra-Renaissance movement: [[10]])
- Independent source on the subject [[11]] indicates that ultra-Renaissance movement has Wrathell as its only member. Although it seems likely that the independent source is incorrect on this point, it simply further highlights the dearth of available reliable sources.
- The Chicago Tribune link supplied above does not mention the artist by name, instead it gives a summary description of a work that appears to match work produced by the artist.
- It also appears (as suggested by user:Gwalla above) that the id user:Sowff is used by the subject, creating an inadequately disclosed WP:COI.
Comment It feels as though the article about Wrathell and the debate about deleting it from Wikipedia is almost an art project in itself, a mordant commentary on the fragility of notability in our information age and the dangers of collective wisdom and the hive mind so notably lamented by other artists such as Jaron Lanier. Indeed, some of Wrathell's work is potentially pioneering, reminiscent of the work of the early computer artist Lillian Schwartz. However, the biographical information available indicates that Wrathell is an attorney: if one legalistically applies the notability criteria against the evidence in the article and findable on the web (or not findable: nothing in JSTOR, nothing featuring the subject by name in the web-search of reliable sources), the subject fails notability as defined by Wikipedia policy. I suspect that Wrathell eventually may be deemed notable, long after Sven and I are mouldering in our non-notable digital graves, and that the fault lies not in Wrathell’s stars (or should I say planets?), but in the WP notability policy. Nonetheless, if as part of civil society we agree that rules we disagree with must be enforced, then this article clearly meets the criteria for deletion.

E.L.Greeley (talk) 17:25, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering this page has been tagged as potentially not meeting the WP:GNG for nearly 4 years, and nobody here seems to be able to come up with anything that would allow us to make this into a reliably sourced page, I think it's high time to delete it. mikeman67 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune is a reliable source. I am not up on all your policies. I never have tried to deceive Wikipedia. Just because a entry is tagged for nearly 4 years does not mean it should be deleted. Ovid was also an attorney as was Robert Lewis Stevenson. Those who want to delete just seem to enjoy deleting. I thought we were having a discussion. Art is something of value and Wrathell is creating art that is exhibited and mentioned in major media outlets and 4 Star Gallery in Indianapolis a major gallery. Waiting for them to update their archives to reflect a show he was in. Infants now can't even play with blocks. Art is dying in America through no fault of Wrathell. Wikipedia should not start deleting living artists because of a few people who enjoy purging Wikipedia for seemingly personal reason such as length of time being tagged and whether a person is also an attorney, etc. More discussion is needed. More commentators will come. Already there are two pro-Wrathell comments besides mine and they are substantive. Sowff (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff[reply]

Hi there Mr. Wrathell (I am referring to you as that as your user page identifies you as him). I would of course agree that the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this discussion, a source needs to actually refer to the topic in question. Please take a look at WP:N for a primer on how the notability guidelines work at Wikipedia. That is the sole criteria that editors decide whether a topic deserves a page here, even if you feel strongly otherwise. You'll see there that for this rather low threshold to be passed, there must be significant coverage, which is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Considering that you are not mentioned at all, the Chicago Tribune article simply has no relevance to the discussion here. Also take a look at WP:BIO for more specific information on how the notability guidelines apply in regards to pages on individuals. As that article says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These policies ensure that all information on WP are the product of reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sheila franklin is an independent documentary filmmaker. She was given a place within the Ultra-Renaissance webpage after the documentary was made. One reason for that is because her former executive producer misappropriated her prior films and it was felt she needed a web-presence independent of him to make people aware of her works, including documentaries made before "the king of pluto" which was about Wrathell and his art. She is not an Ultra-Renaissance artist. Sowff (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff[reply]

delete Nonnotable artist with works of questionable quality. No independent reliable coverage . Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To all the new editors, welcome. Please note that the determinant for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and that notability "does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" (or quality of work, for that matter). With the exception of Staszek Lem's comments (which I feel are completely uncalled for), those calling for deletion of the article aren't doing so out of a lack of respect for the artistic quality or value of the artwork, a doubt as to the rationale behind the artistic movement, or questions about the addictive qualities of his characters. If there is non-trivial coverage of the artist himself (and not his artwork) in reliable secondary sources then this article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be removed until the subject has received such coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't mess with other people's posts. I am I my full right to express my opinion about artistic quality of an artist, and this has nothing to do with civility. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the artist himself has, rightly or not, been participating in this discussion, it most certainly does have to do with civility. It was an insult, albeit a mild one. Your opinion of the quality of his work is also irrelevant: the aesthetics of the subject cannot be a reason to keep or delete an article. The lousiest artist and the greatest merit articles if and only if they meet the criteria for inclusion. While it probably would have been better if Ahect had asked you to change it yourself, I should point out that WP:RUC (a section of WP:CIVIL) specifically says "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." — Gwalla | Talk 17:06, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Tokai[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why the subject should be presumed notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are two interviews lacking any secondary analysis and obviously WP:PRIMARY, an article about a bag she designed, not her, a trivial mention that she was in the running for an award and a webpage about the Miss Colorado pageants that doesn't even mention the subject. Googling turns up nothing useful. Also, though not a reason to delete, it appears the article may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by an WP:SPA. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need someone who can read Hungarian - this looks interesting and in-depth, though Google Translate has no doubt butchered it. I'm not sure. Looking at her press page I see she has been profiled and interviewed in magazines around the world, alongside the usual photoshoots and celeb spots. I am leaning keep, I think someone with this level of exposure and international coverage (in some internationally reputed magazines) would probably pass GNG, although she certainly seems swamped by her own promotional stuff/self published sources. Mabalu (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FashionFave article may be somewhat butchered by Google Translates but it's clearly an interview, Mabalu, and does not contain any secondary analysis, only just softball questions. That makes it WP:PRIMARY and unsuitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the fact that she was selected for an interview is significant in and of itself, IMO. Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your argument, that if they interviewed her, they apparently thought she was notable. But our guidelines ask for more specific evidence in the form of reliable independent secondary sources. From WP:GNG, ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."

This interview is primary. To qualify as a secondary source, it must contain secondary analysis. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." For example, a 60 Minutes interview is secondary to the extent that it mixes their own fact-checking, analysis and other content along with subject's own words. See also WP:NOR#cite_note-3, "Further examples of primary sources include ... interviews".

Interviews like this one are not unlike a magazine publishing someone's article. The only real content here is the subject's own words. You could argue the magazine must have thought it was significant else they wouldn't have published it. But that wouldn't change the fact it's still primary and thus unsuitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth cover in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 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) 08:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how may times you relist it, independent sources cannot pop up out of the blue. Three weeks of AFD listing should be enough if anybody cared to rescue the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 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 move to Draft:The Atlanta Way (film). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlanta Way (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is a film of significance about a topic of importance for Atlanta, notably for its Black community, and which was noted in Creative Loafing, and on the widely read site for young Black professional women Clutch, and by the American Sociological Association. Keizers (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the topic of the film is significant, but the actual documentary is not considering the guidelines at WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you be more specific (e.g. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") --> by this it seems significant for me, Creative Loafing, American Sociology, Clutch, etc. are almost important media/organizations Keizers (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Right now the coverage is just too light. I'm also concerned that the ASA source was written by a Georgia State University professor, which is the same college that one of the film's directors attended. That kind of pushes it into uncomfortable WP:PRIMARY territory, because it would be in the professor's best interest to positively discuss something done by someone who had gone to her college. While it's not exactly like the professor is saying that Williams attended her classes (although we can't automatically say he didn't since she didn't say it), I'd really prefer to have more coverage in reliable sources and more by people who didn't have a connection to the directors in some way. I do think that this will very likely gain coverage once it officially releases, but right now it's just way, way too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 12 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) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Userfy without prejudice as the film topic does not meet the caveats set for unreleased films found at WP:NFF (paragraph 3), and we have no place to redirect or merge. It is getting some coverage, but not enough quite yet. Let be released and receive commentary and review in reliable sources and we can welcome it back with open arms. For now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gentrification of Atlanta. I'm dubious on the notability of the film, but it's a real phenomenon that needs to be addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:27, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against redirecting, WP:BOLD or otherwise. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Training Academy[edit]

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

It looks like this subject is already discussed in a decent paragraph (but needing citations) on the Wounded Warrior Project article, which manages it. This current article has no citations, reads like a promo piece at times, and I question if TTA is notable on it's own. I propose deletion and/or redirect since it's technically already merged. SarahStierch (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Keep~~ ~~Wrong forum~~ Keep These are all issues that need an editor or editors, not AfD volunteers or administrative tools. Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi User:Unscintillating, thanks for your comment. Often bringing things to AfD, when deletion is indeed an option, is easier than hoping someone will pass by a talk page or takes action based on my pinging at WikiProjects. I do have a question: why should it be kept as it's own article and not simply redirected and merged to Wounded Warrior Project where there is a decent and neutral section devoted to TTA? SarahStierch (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a valid question, but IMO it is a decision for the content contributors at Wounded Warrior Project to decide if they want to continue to develop this stub as a breakout article or pull it back to the parent article. Your question seems to imply that I !voted against redirection, so I have re-phrased my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 7 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 02:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with editor Unscintillating, that this is the wrong forum, and further think this AFD is best resolved by "Keep". Plus anyone is welcome to suggest at Talk page of the Wounded Warrior Project that this should be merged/redirected there, and then even to proceed with doing that if there are not objections. --do ncr am 22:16, 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) 08:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - That this has been relisted twice is clear evidence that this can be considered the right forum. Sarah has suggested deletion as a possible outcome owing to concerns of the subject's notability as an individual, which is entirely within AFDs purview. That she suggested a merge may be worthwhile does not make this the wrong venue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, please respond to the assertion made on your behalf that it was your intention to take down my !vote, when you relisted rather than moved the discussion. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I view the nomination as valid per concerns about notability and because the nominator has proposed potential deletion as part of the rationale. Relisting does not invalidate any !votes. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion between the two of us, so I won't respond. I will restore my initial !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Nicholls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Contested A7 speedy, I can see an argument for notability hence putting to to AfD vs speedy deleting. Tawker (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No argument exists for notability as said notability relies on The Mighty Don't Kneel. This goes to WP:INHERIT. There is nothing in the article that proves notability of the individual. All his notable success has been with TMDK. This article should have been speedied IMO. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Half of Japan's top tag teams as recognized by an independent newspaper in Tokyo Sports. Has held the GHC Tag Team Championship, challenged for the GHC Heavyweight Championship and is consistently in featured matches for the promotion. WP:INHERIT works more for someone like Jonah Rock, who's the third member of TMDK and HE is not notable just because he's a member of the stable. Nicholls is the actual guy wrestling the matches, winning the titles and getting the praise. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the sourced material about what he's done on his own? Nowhere. This should be deleted - and redirected to TMDK at best. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep - apparently Nicholls has won some singles championships as well, and had a shot at GHC's top title. Unless we're talking about a tag team of twins like the Usos or the Bella Twins, how many can you name where the tag team has an article but not the individual wrestlers? NOAH's a major promotion as well. starship.paint "YES !" 09:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The singles titles he has "won" are not notable. Referring to NOAH as a major promotion goes against WP:INHERIT. There are many tag teams where the individual members are not notable by themselves, unless they have done something notable by themselves. For instance you couldn't have done an article on either Shawn Michaels or Marty Jannetty prior to the break up in early 1992. It had to be the Rockers. Now of course both do stand up on their own because they have done notable things as individuals. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese promotions don't just throw championship matches around, especially for their top singles titles, so getting one is kind of a big deal. Noah, again a top promotion, recognized Nicholls worthy of challenging for their top title and winning the tag title and this, along with the recognition from outside the promotion, makes him notable. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is only recognized because of TMDK. Prove that he is recognized as an individual. Getting one title shot is NOT a big deal unless again you can show with sources how it is a big deal. Where's the blanket coverage putting him over as a threat? And if it's such a big deal, there should be coverage in English as an aside. I suggest you stop using TMDK's notability as a platform to debate this because yet again - notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop citing WP:INHERIT, when you don't seem to know what it means. He's not some TMDK flunky getting by just because his associates are superstars. You seem to think that everything he has done while teaming with Haste should be just left out, when discussing Nicholls' notability. That's ridiculous. And there is no English coverage for the simple reason that he's not American. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep citing WP:INHERIT because it's a factor - a factor that you are totally ignoring. We have an aricle on TMDK. That's where that material goes and not here. NOAH has coverage in the US doesn't it? So why is there an issue with Nicholls not being American? Maybe it has nothing to do with it. Maybe it's to do with the fact that he is not notable. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:40, 6 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 03:07, 12 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) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One-half of a well-known, award-winning tag team. I'm not sure how important the GHC Championship is, but he did win that title. The Steve 05:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect to The Mighty Don't Kneel. I agree with the 124 IP. Notability as an individual has not been established. All keep arguments rely on The Mighty Don't Kneel and not on Nicholls as an inidividual. There's virtually nothing in the article (that's notable) about any individual achievements he has made. BerleT (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per my comments on the Kellie Skater AfD. BerleT (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per BerleT but nothing to merge due to lack of notability. TMDK covers everything. 1.124.85.78 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note The delete vote from the IP (124...), as well as the subsequent replies to the keep votes, is a (now-blocked) sockpuppet of a banned user. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mighty Don't Kneel Not individually notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these damn puppets are making me suspicious of IPs / redusers ... especially those that participate in deletion discussions. starship.paint "YES !" 10:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Achieved much success as a wrestler, in promotions where titles aren't passed around like the WWE Hardcore Championship.LM2000 (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Success level is not objective. Titles are passed around on a whim no mater what the promotion or title. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If success level is not objective then what the hell is? Winning championships isn't a measure of notability? Ahem? starship.paint "YES !" 03:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What championships? What has he won? Nothing notable at all on his own. As for TMDK they have ONE title once and that's it. Do better. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly shows which championships he has won. Regardless, he now passes WP:GNG, in terms of reliable secondary sources' coverage, showing that he has wrestled internationally, challenging and winning championships. starship.paint "YES !" 06:48, 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 move to Draft:La Gata (2014 telenovela). A promo having aired is not a notability criterion. That said, given that it's airing in a few days, it would be pointless to delete this now and likely have to restore it very soon, so I'm moving it to the draft namespace until it's ready. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Gata (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Note that this says that its premiere will be on May 5 and has very little credible reference. It would be better if they have already create promotional?. When its release is really something true.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree they are cleared. They are not even soap operas have aired. No guarantee they air. And besides these items have very little credible references.--GeorgeMilan / talk 17:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. Keep as per below, seems to have a promo aired -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Already promotional Internet.--GeorgeMilan / talk 18:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: As was mentioned before Televisa Canal de las Estrellas has already aired a promo. Joeloliv8 (talk) 19:52, 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 03:07, 12 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) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering production has apparently only just started, the source of which is two line article on some sort of industry website, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:FUTURE. Way too premature, there's simply no significant coverage yet. mikeman67 (talk) 16:26, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mendota Lutheran Home[edit]

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

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines and our notability guidelines for organizations. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nursing-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 00:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChampionMan1234: It doesn't look like "Nursing" is an existing delsort category... Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete - This appears to be a run-of-the-mill nursing home. I can find no indication of individual notability after a cursory Google search. The article is probably a WP:PERMASTUB. There is nothing I can find that would make this nursing home rise above all the other nursing homes in the world. Mz7 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A nursing home is not especially exciting as a topic, like most topics of historical houses that i happen to have most contributed to previously, but it is notable, there is documentation as it is 501c3 charitable nonprofit that receives a lot of donations and is delivering services for the public good. I added 2 references easily. It is a $7 million annual size institution, is a significant nonprofit. --do ncr am 17:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guidestar, a source that was added to the article, is a primary source. I work with nonprofits, and I work with nonprofits to update their Guidestar profiles. All data from Guidestar is either provided directly by the organization, or indirectly through their IRS reporting. Thus, making it not a reliable secondary source. SarahStierch (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know you are familiar with Guidestar, and presumably with the IRS form 990 forms that nonprofits have to file and which Guidestar posts for free access to anyone who opens a free account. The 990 forms are "primary" but reliable for some information, such as the financial size of a nonprofit. We can use information from primary sources in articles. I agree that it is not secondary coverage about the organization of the type we are looking for to establish notability by usual GNG means. But, large size established by 990 form info does speak to the importance / scale of an organization and to its likely importance / notability. Also, separate Guidestar ratings about organizations, which I think Guidestar does provide, would probably be secondary, like how the ratings of Moody's and other corporate bond-rating organizations would be secondary information about a public company. I am also aware that Guidestar accepts/posts comments about nonprofits from volunteers or anyone else, like user comments about their experience with a nonprofit, and those would not be reliable sources. I didn't look for, or obtain, separate Guidestar ratings about the organization and did not look for any user-type comments. Not arguing, just commenting. --do ncr am 16:24, 7 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 03:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ordinary nursing home, one of thousands, with nothing more than routine coverage for such institutions. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 17 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) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. np coverage that establishes notability of any kind.TheLongTone (talk) 11:15, 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 no consensus. A merge has been briefly mentioned as a possible solution, this should be discussed on the article talk page per the usual procedure if anyone wants to try that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanowa[edit]

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

Promotional Puccetto (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By referring twice to the company's main page the information was very scarce, but multiple external sources have now been added. Kareldorado (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of them is independent source, and it mentions hanowa only in three words, one of them 'hanowa'. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aren't the sources Solothurner Zeitung and Die Weltwoche (and now also Moneyhouse) all independent? Kareldorado (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Press-releases are not independent regardless media. Zeitung article is not about hanowa and mentions it in two words. Weltwoche is a promo article by CEO of Hanowa. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it is not a promo article BY, but an interview WITH the CEO. However, I do get your point. Thanks for the commentary. Kareldorado (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if it were a promo, the only information that I take out of it is the tiny fact that he is the CEO. Kareldorado (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional"??? In no way, the brands have been praised for their quality in this article up to this moment. Kareldorado (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- <chuck-chuck giggle-giggle> Obviously you are not of advertising business or schooling. You may want to read about Product placement and about the place of wikipedia in the info world. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. BTW, you shot yourself in the leg, colleague, with this remark. :-) If there is nothing to say about product quality then why the article at all? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, so many pulling-up-in-the-sky adjectives I have seen in other brand pages, but writing about the quality should be based on something, right? A reference from an authority in the field, for example - I assume. I'm a little surprised that so many unreferenced (or barely referenced) watch brand pages are still alive. Kareldorado (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you've seen but what you've done? Hint: if it bothers you, take a big mop with WP:PEACOCK sticker on it (and in edit summary). Re: 'quality': you are right on. Re: 'still alive': see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want my personal opinion, I don't really care about businesses to go on a crusade against them. I don't think this kind of knowledge is vital for wikipedia to waste excessive time on it. You may ask what am I doing in this page, then? Answer: I am talking to a colleague wikipedian, regardless the business in question. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant spam--Pagoprima (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this is no personal war after I gave criticism in the AfD-page about Breil (company), Pagoprima. What I wrote there is that the Breil article could be better if it were rewritten in a more neutral way, and leaving those sentences out was already a step in the good direction. Honestly, I hope none of "our" articles needs to be deleted, but we will see how others have their say. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the current version of the article, more non-primary sources are used than in several other (but unchallenged) articles in the category "Watch manufacturing companies of Switzerland". Kareldorado (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you are confused. The issue in not about 'primary' or not. The issue is who/what is the source of information. With the exception of a single ref (which simply mentions Hanowa inside a different subject) there is no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware that not primary is not necessarily independent. However, I hope that "enough" of the given sources (5 newspapers, 5 sites with brand/company profiles, some magazines and an event page) do provide independent information. Kareldorado (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the key word in your reply is "I hope", whereas I did look into the sources and see close to no independent information. If you disagree, please indicate which sources, in your opinion, delivered independent info. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Errr... perhaps "Hindustan Times", "The Economic Times", "The Star" and the sites with brand/company profiles? I agree that the key word is "I hope". Kareldorado (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Errr...rrrr..<growl...bite>. Do you remember my remark about press releases? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No notability per WP:CORP--Zipezap (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered this comment to be written by a sockpuppet as this person had barely contributed (1 edit in the minutes before) before writing this; not even a talk page (or user page) was made at that moment. Kareldorado (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep This presents us with a small dilemma—or three! The parent company, same as Frommherz's Roamer (name not found, though could just be Roamer) appears to be non-notable. The sister-company (or possibly parent), the Roamer brand, already has an article and also appears non-notable. The founder, Hans Noll, does appear to have filed a US patent for using Haematite for watch timing—other than that he also appears non-notable.

The real problem is that of reliable sources, especially problematic is that non-German speakers may not be getting the right results as reliable sources may be local newspapers, Swiss/German ones, that Google has not cached (or is not considering for me as I am an English speaker). The only one I can see that seems to be reliable is the Solothurner Zeitung and it's article (translation (murdered by Google)). Unless reliable sources can be found it seems that the best solution for these two articles (this and Roaming) might be to compress dramatically, and merge into the Solothurn page - with a new section Solothurn#Industry? - as recommended in WP:FAILN. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Good suggestion about the merging, taking into account the few reliable sources. Methinks, a paragraph about "the Frommherz group" in section Solothurn#Industry stating that both local watchmaking companies are run by the same person would be good (I don't know if there is any other local watch brand or manufacturer). Kareldorado (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why not: merging is possible resolution. You can past and copy text without promotional part; anyway this article need deletion--Puccetto (talk) 16:19, 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 03:15, 12 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) 08:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the Solothurn page in section Solothurn#Industry with Roamer (watchmaker) as above's suggestion--Pagoprima (talk) 12:53, 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. Fails notability. I checked out Anupmehra's sources, and agree with EricEnfermero that they are mostly press releases. If somebody thinks they can find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability, I'll be happy to move it to your user space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyzer Startup Accelerator[edit]

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

Seems to have the same issue that led to a previous deletion of the entry: This organization just does not receive significant independent coverage at this point. Yourstory.com is self-described as "India’s no.1 media platform for entrepreneurs." EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Subject meets Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations. I've found following sources that suggest notability of the subject, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. These sources have substantial enough coverage of the subject to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. However, there must be some more sources left untouched by me. The article requires rewriting and expansion, not deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, if kept, should be moved to Catalyzer startup accelerator. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the eight sources, seven appear to be self-published (mostly press release-type material) and the eighth source doesn't mention Catalyzer as far as I can tell. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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) 08:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - lacks independent sources to assert notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as lacking independent sourcing and/or WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anupmehra has brought up numerous third party RS thus invalidating this AfD, please do not disregard those because they have not been added to the article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My read on the "numerous third party RS" provided by Anupmehra and mentioned by Valoem is that they are almost entirely press releases. I'm a bit shocked that wasn't obvious, in fact. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they are not all pr some of them are i saw that but this [20] seems ok and this [21]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On its About Us page, Yourstory.com describes "a singular passion - to tell the world your story and to enable your story!" There is even a link where companies can request to be covered. The other reference mentions an entity with a similar name, but it doesn't seem to be the same company. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two is an interview, the other is authored by a fellow at the venture capital firm behind Catalyst. [22] I'm not seeing either source as independent. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:08, 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 no consensus. This does not mean that the article should not be heavily edited to resolve any issues. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Klinefelter XXY[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork and contains extensive original research in the form of generous interpretations of case reports (primary sources). There are no sharply defined boundaries for what constitutes Klinefelter syndrome (KS) based on recent expert review,[23], so any article attempting to establish a definition of what does not constitute KS is original research. Additionally, this article is redefining Klinefelter based on gender identity, with no support from the medical literature (a single case report is not sufficient). The article was created during a content dispute (see Talk:Klinefelter syndrome) and has an obvious ideological POV. Novangelis (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Novangelis (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article Non-Klinefelter XXY should be deleted, but the issues that it raises need to be discussed in the main article. In determining whether or not the definition of Klinefelter has "no sharply defined boundaries" it's clear that a sharp boundary is what prompted creation of this separate page: a definition of Klinefelter that is intrinsically based on gender identity, as being a diagnosis in men. There is evidence of clinical discussion of this issue, see for example Herlihy and Gillam (2011) Thinking outside the square: considering gender in Klinefelter syndrome and 47, XXY, in International Journal of Andrology. While this is a medical article, medical treatment intersects with human rights issues. Consequential treatment paradigms for people with 47,XXY have so been discussed in the Australian Senate, see discussion of the inquiry report Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia by Senator Rachel Siewert on 25 March 2014. Trankuility (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was significant rejection of the issues this article raised being included in the main article, as you can see in the Talk for KS page. It was suggested that the page be created to address the issues separately as there is significant case reports and research to make the case for the existence of Non KS XXY. If you view the Talk Page for Non KS XXY, you will find a very good suggestion from Luke Surl to rename the article Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. I would suggest that be amended to "Gender and Sex Chromosome Anomalies" since not all gender issues surrounding SCAs are rooted in identity; there is evidence that some people with an SCA have ambiguous genitalia or are born female due to other genes on their sex chromosomes. This would allow for expansion of the other SCAs not included in the XXY/KS line that also generate gender identity differences. There was a 66 year old man in China with the micro penis who was recently told he was an XO and a woman although he had lived his life as a man. He is but one case of an XO male as others exist in medical literature. Perhaps this would be a way around the KS problems noted in the original proposal for deletion. Finally, the human rights issue is no small issue and should not be ignored. As always, I am open to reasonable suggestions and ways to conform to Wikipedia rules and guidelines with future edits but see the includion of this research as viable and important from a medical and human rights perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAWilson52 (talk • contribs)

I approved this article at AfC a few months ago. It was one of those borderline cases that could have easily been failed. At the time of approval, I removed a fair bit of material that was too POV. The article has remained on my watchlist since, and I have made a few edits and contributed to the talk page.

The crux of this issue is that it is debatable whether the subject of the article exists, i.e. whether a person can be physiologically the same as a Klinefelter syndrome sufferer (XXY and SRY-positive), but, due to their gender identity, not have Klinefelter syndrome. Most medical definitions of Klinefelter syndrome consider only the physiological, so the question of gender identity is more a social science one. The article's major contributor (who used to be named User:BeyondXXY,Inc) clearly has a POV on the issue, and, in some senses, the mere existence of an article with the name "Non-Klinefelter XXY" is an endorsement of their position.

On the other hand, Wikipedia does have articles on subjects of debatable existance, and CAWilson52 has shown a willingness to work with Wikipedia's POV guidelines. In some sense, if the article is about this as a social phenomenon, rather than a medical idea, then as long as there is sufficient coverage of such a phenomenon in reliable sources the article can exist regardless of what the medical definitions are.

Therefore, I propose that the article be moved to Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. This is a title that is POV neutral. It also broadens the scope of the article to cover all Sex Chromosome Anomalies, not just XXY, which for an article on a social phenomenon is more appropriate. As per standard POV guidelines, the article should authoritatively state any position that is debatable, and instead reflect what is written in the reliable sources.

Restructuring the article as such may initially reduce it to a near-stub, but hopefully with due care and attention this topic could be a decent part of the enyclopedia.

--LukeSurl^{t c} 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this study lumps all the varied karyotypes under KS. This was a question of much discussion on the KS wiki page when I first sought inclusion of female XXYs on that page. Regardless of where, the validity of inclusion somewhere is strengthened since we know that it is the most common sex chromosome aneuploidy in humans and a significant enough portion of those will have gender identity issues as well as physical gender variances.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540567

I do like the idea of the information being moved to Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. Am happy to be a part of tweaking and adding other karyotypes of gender variability in the research to flesh such an entry out to being one worthy of the Wikipedia. CAWilson52 (talk) 22:46, 17 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) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's reasons. At best it appears that some of this content should be merged to a more appropriate page. mikeman67 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure The topic seems to be covered in literature. I am not judging the quality of the information in this article or of the sources from which it was derived, but it seems like there is enough here to think this might have its own article. The deletion arguments seem to be that this is article makes nuance and distinction of a broader topic, and this information ought not be separated from the broader topic. Could this be merged somewhere? Would that please everyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 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 keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tips from the Top Floor[edit]

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

The article almost seems to be written as an advertisement, and it lacks references for citation. --Z L Media 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or a new nomination rationale required. Article lacking references is not a valid rationale. The world lacking sources is. Or should I say, would be : Tricks of the Podcasting Masters, Robert Walch, Mur Lafferty, Que Publishing-Google Books. We Are TFTTF - Community - Google+, Apr 16, 2014 - Fans of Tips from the Top Floor, the <emphasis added longest running photography show on the net>-Google vanilla. Etc etc. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are two arguments that could be made for notability here, WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT #2. I don't see that the article or Anarchangel has established sources that meet the first of those criteria. WEBCRIT 2 only applies to "well-known awards", on one hand, I think it's a stretch to suggest these are well-known awards in the meaning of that criteria, but that is mitigaged by two wins (2005 and 2006 education award.) I don't know of precent relevant WEBCRIT and the Podcast awards, but am willing to reconsider my view in view of such precedent if it's brought to my attention. The two relevant discussions on the relevant talk page Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web) do not appear to be sufficient to argue a consensus either way. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 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) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recognized as noteworthy with multiple awards. — Cirt (talk) 10:31, 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 redirect to Savage Dragon. There seems to be a clear consensus to not have a standalone article for this fictional character. However, redirects are cheap and this will preserve the content if someone wants to merge, either to the "flagship" article or a "list of characters" style article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilde[edit]

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

A non notable comic book character without third person sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is a way to source this, it should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability, completing lacking in source, and written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective. Given the character's sideline position in the series, I don't think we're going to be able to find any good sources to establish notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/o prejudice to a subsequent merger into a broader article when an appropriate one is created. "Savage Dragon" is a major comics franchise (including a TV component) with a very large number of established characters, who are too extensive to cover in the article on the flagship title. Whether to cover these individually or in umbrella articles is an editorial decision (and a "list of characters" article looks like a much better choice), but wiping out existing coverage because it is woefully incomplete would be a bad choice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:13, 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) 08:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no assertion of notability in the article currently, let alone any sources. Simply because a character is from a notable book is not sufficient, obviously. mikeman67 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of reliable sources. All Wikipedia subjects must have WP:SIGCOV. wirenote (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - No one argued we should delete the article solely because it is incomplete. The key issue is notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important outside the fan universe. Shii (tock) 17:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but plot. No indication of notability, and Google isn't much help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment alongside Freak Force I am planning on nominating some other Savage Dragon related characters as the quality of such articles are just poor. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Savage Dragon. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect w/o prejudice to judicious merging -- I don't see sourcing showing notability, but it's certainly a plausible search term and a signficant subtopic of Savage Dragon. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:00, 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 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Smith (politician)[edit]

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

Minor figure whose only claim to notability is her candidature in a state election later this year, where her chances are minimal. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not qualify under WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been speedied, decided to err on the side of going to PROD instead and was removed. No realistic claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete merely a political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ms Smith will become notable if she's elected, or if she does multiple things which attract significant levels of media coverage, but that doesn't seem to be the case at present. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way to early, and there's not anything yet beyond the routine coverage that you'd usually expect to see for a political candidate. Article should of course be re-created in the event that she does get herself elected. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Ms Smith has done multiple things to attract media coverage. She has been featured on the ABC (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2013/08/an-australian-century.html) and the people for deleting the page have not proven that she has a "minimal chance". 101.172.42.162 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and there is not any category.Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 12:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent at WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per longstanding consensus for unelected politicians. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the event she wins the race, a new article can be created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an unelected candidate gets her name into a bit of news coverage when her candidacy is announced does not make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article — local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so every candidate in any election will get some form of media coverage. Our inclusion rules on here, however, require that in most cases a politician must win election to office, not just run for it, to become notable enough. An unelected candidate still has the possibility to be notable enough if you can adequately demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article before she was selected as a candidate, but does not qualify for an article on here just because of a couple of news articles about her candidacy itself. And also, it doesn't actually matter whether her chances of winning the election are "minimal" or "maximal"; Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, so it's irrelevant how much chance anyone thinks she does or doesn't have of winning. Even "is overwhelmingly favoured to win" does not count for beans as a notability claim on here — either you verifiably prove that she did win the election after the ballots are counted, or you've got nothing. Delete — she'll qualify for an article if she wins the seat, but does not merit one just for having her name on the ballot. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Running for election is arguably a WP:BLP1E case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kumar Pandey[edit]

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

A preening article loaded as one of several on JTJ Technologies and their associates: "talented and glamorous", "beautiful dreams in his small eyes", "Degree of engineering has not made him an engineer, he was born an engineer", "the deep eyes of JTJ personel , has made his work with them as a CEO of the company". All of which would be a matter for normal editing were there evidence that the subject has been recognised as attaining notability. I can find none, he appears simply to be a young man with a degree and a job, hence this article joins its associates at AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no assertion of notability, part of a package of non-notable articles by the same editor, to say nothing of the tone. SchreiberBike talk 00:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article about a non-notable person. Salih (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been speedied.—indopug (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG , the article has been written like an advertisement. All the references are from his website and his company's website.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This almost seems like a parody of a Wikipedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 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 Redirect to Powder. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pouder[edit]

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

Poudar, which is currently a redirect to this page, was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poudar. This page, created by the same individual (alternate user name declared here), is not identical but suffers from similar lack of clarity. The deleted Poudar said something to the effect that was a surname (or possibly an ethnic group) of Mayan people in Nepal and France; Pouder is, according to this article, a surname "native to United Kingdom", but also a Nepalese indigenous people. Cnilep (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to Ann Pouder or to Powder as a possible misspelling or archaic spellynge, with a hatnote to Ann. Not seeing anything out there regarding the surname in general. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ann Pouder is (as of my own edit a few minutes ago, and from October 2012 until three days ago) itself a redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Pouder, which deleted her bio in 2007. Cnilep (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then a redirect or hatnote to the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's creator, User:Manzilnfl has left comments at Talk:Pouder which I believe are intended for this deletion discussion. The user also removed the AfD template from the article, perhaps confusing it with PROD. The closing admin may want to weigh those comments. Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to Powder, as recommended by Clarityfiend. I have added Ann Pouder to the See also section of that disambiguation page. Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 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, czar ♔ 05:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SouJava[edit]

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

Unsourced promotion for a for a non-notable group. damiens.rf 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While currently unsourced, that is not a reason to delete if sources can be found online. A couple of easy searches online found lots of secondary (books) and primary (scholarly) sources available. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 7 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 02:50, 12 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 ♔ 05:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are quite a few mentions of this group, but nothing that amounts to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," a prerequisite for articles on organizations. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B.B Gunn[edit]

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

references are entirely primary sources connected to subject, or are youtube videos. page appears to be entirely promotional in nature. magazine is just being launched this week [24], article can wait until notability established for either mag or person. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 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, czar ♔ 05:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I previewed what the article would look like after removing the unsourced, poorly sourced (articles that don't say what they're purported to, a number of YouTube videos), and primary sourced content. There are 3 sources left: Lambda Literary, Sextronixxx, and SF Weekly. All three are specifically about the magazine (the only section to survive), and not any of these other many activities. Sounds like the magazine may be notable, but that would be a separate article; I don't see enough here to pass WP:NPEOPLE (and then there's WP:BLP, WP:PROMO, and WP:COI....). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete proper sourcing is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I am seeing some reliable sourcing within the article including S.F. Weekly, I do however have issues with the tone of this article which seems promotional. This can be fixed though. Tons of cruft needs to be removed, but RS nonetheless exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we pare the article back to material that can be properly sourced (in the context of a BLP) there is very little left. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:53, 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 redirect to American_Association_of_Christian_Schools#State_associations. Fails notability guidelines; no prejudice against recreation if a new version contains sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Association of Christian Schools[edit]

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

After some research, appears to fail our WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Others to prove me wrong are encouraged! Assume good faith and improve the article if you think you can! Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - possible sources (and some of these aren't readable online, but perhaps someone could access from a library). [25], [26]. It is significant enough to be specificically mentioned in South Carolina statute. [27]. It also evidently has a branch for school-sports regulation league the receives local coverage [28]. I don't know if there is such a thing as inherently notable for educational accrediting associations, but it seems to be one of three (including the State) that have official status in South Carolina. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw all of those sources too, but there was nothing that triggered me to declare reliable secondary let alone notable. Perhaps the schools and the statures are more notable. We'll see what others say though. Thanks for your comment! SarahStierch (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 7 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, Northern Antarctica (T • ₵) 02:35, 12 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 ♔ 05:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It seems a harmless article to me. Why not keep it? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 78.26. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no sources at all. Does not establish notability, or even that this exists. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Inclusion is state law is an interesting source, but it mostly appears to be insubstantial and/or local only. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (but not merge) to American_Association_of_Christian_Schools#State_associations. I don't see coverage that gets us to WP:ORG, having checked the article, the usual searches, plus Highbeam. And the attribution issue (y'all did notice that some of the text was borrowed from the AACS article, and reads like it was taken from a mission statement, yeah?) leaves me wondering if there's a deeper old copyvio in what little text we have here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:54, 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. I'd be happy to userify this if someone wants to try to integrate the content elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of Postcolonial Englishes: Theories[edit]

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

Promotional/book review. May also fail WP:NOTJOURNAL. Notability not established. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Although I will assume good faith, I suppose that this article was created to help with sales of said book. Nonetheless, it fails the general notability guideline, and as such, shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Ging287 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Postcolonial English dialects. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 7 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 02:45, 12 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 ♔ 05:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY; as almost certainly a student essay. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a shame to lose all this material. I wonder if some could be merged into somewhere like History of the English language? I may drop a note at the linguistics Wikiproject. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it would be a shame to lose the material. I also agree that it is definitely a student project of some sort. Perhaps it should be integrated into other pages. Joeystanley (talk) 20:52, 29 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-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Cordevilla[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Although peppered with citations, upon examination, all citations appear to be to the same footnote in one book (then copied from one book to another by editor Abad) that mentions Cordevilla in passing. Passing mention in a footnote hardly seems to be the bar of significant coverage that we seek. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken note of the editor's comment that Edwin M. Cordevilla is a non-notable poet. His basis for his claim is merely that Cordevilla was mentioned only in passing in a national literary history for poetry. That he was mentioned, in the context of a continuity of a literary tradition and noted by the scholar Gemino Abad should already serve as a lead to research for the significance of Cordevilla in the Philippine literary scene. A deeper research reveals that Cordevilla is the author of the longest epic written by a Filipino and that the book, was further launched by the Philippine Center of International PEN in its headquarters in Malate, Manila. Cordevilla's epic was even described as more than three times the length of English epic Beowulf. I think that Cordevilla, being the author of such a poem of epic proportions, is significant not only to his country, but to world literature as well, for the latter though, only time can really tell. Edcor1967 (talk) Edcor1967 — Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given this user's username (who also happens to be the author of the article in question), it might be a reasonable presumption that this editor is, in fact, the poet in question. If my presumption is correct, I would like to point out that it is customary at Wikipedia to disclose such conflicts of interest in any discussions related to the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 12 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 ♔ 05:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This page [29] indicates that Cordevilla's work has had some impact in the literary community. While hardly an extensive source, this [30] indicates that Cordevilla formerly held an editor's position with several Filipino newspapers. It may be something of a stretch, but I think the evidence shows that he's had some degree of an impact on Filipino literature. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Fantasies[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources provided or found. In a chain of vanity articles for the production company and the producer. Bleakcomb (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just not finding sources to establish notability (per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM). Several claims indicate significance but again, not finding anything to back it up. Combining "secret fantasies" with the various publications it refers to returns nothing. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am also unable to find coverage to show that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow talk 00:59, 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. Wizardman 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tocco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Former minor league baseball announcer. Has not received any well-known award or honor nor has he made any widely recognized contribution to broadcasting. Nearly all of the coverage about the subject has been WP:ROUTINE (e.g. announcements about career moves) and most of it has been written by people with an interest in promoting the subject (e.g. former employers). Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (amended 16:29, 21 April 2014)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable outside of his past profession and region. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure if this subject is notable or not, but I think the nomimation is mis-applying WP:GEOSCOPE, which is applicable to regional events, whereas this subject is a person, for which regional coverage may be adequate to demonstrate notability. That said, I am not sure that there is enough coverage here, even including regional coverage, to be adequate. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about WP:GEOSCOPE. I have amended the nomination. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG--no significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:46, 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 keep. (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyondblue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly promotional article. They have gotten some significant press coverage, but most of the article deals with advocating their cause, not describing the organization. Would need to be started over from scratch with a NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have enough media coverage to warrant an entry. I am not seeing much promotional content to warrant that criticism, but a) I just scanned the article so I am not saying this too strongly and 2) while I have no objection to this getting tagged with ((advert)),((peacock)) or such, this is not enough to warrant the deletion. I think the article passes notability, so while we could tag it with issue-tags, I am not seeing enough reason to get this deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly a notable organisation, which gets lots of media attention, but the article could be an awful lot better. It and the organisation seem often to serve the function of promoting the image of two failed politicians from the same party at its head. I am concerned that the media has not done much real analysis of what Beyondblue is really doing, so I don't know how we will go finding great sources for a deeper look at things. There needs to be some quantitative indication of what real successes Beyondblue has had, if any, rather than just platitudes abut what its aims are, and how great it is that these ex-pollies are involved. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't great, but this is among Australia's best-known NGOs and has a strong public profile. A search of Google Scholar also shows that it has been the subject of a number of scholarly articles, which will probably provide some material relevant to addressing HiLo48's concerns about assessments of its impact - these three articles in particular provide evaluations of the organisation and/or individual programs it runs: [31], [32], [33]. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep, close the AFD, allow editors to develop Wikipedia. Sure, tag whatever you wish. But AFDs on notable topics seem not helpful to developing Wikipedia, they seem to throw a wrench into it, instead, IMHO. --do ncr am 02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of Australia's better known NGOs, and the subject of extensive third party coverage as demonstrated by User:Nick-D. The article itself can be improved of course, but that's no reason on its own to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, a well known organisation in Australia, and the article should be improved. Trankuility (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvement not deletion and it is very well known within Australia, though perhaps not outside of the country. --BenM (talk) 22:31, 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. There is a consensus that this theory is notable since it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heutagogy[edit]

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

propaganda for a minor theory. see also the almost identical article under the inventor's name, Stewart Hase, nominated for deletion in the adjacent afd Almost all the works listed are from before the theory was developed. Of the 2 actual references, it is the title of one small chapter in ref.1, and is mentioned once in ref. 2. This concept has been carefully worked into a number of other WP{ articles, as if to give the impression that it is something important. Possibly one oft he article could be kept, but trying to get 2 articles on a very minor topic is one the the most common promotional techniques here: excessive coverage is promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this article. It was covered in secondary sources independent of the creators (Although certainly better ones would be .um. better.) . I will be !voting delete on the other article. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a minor theory, but it has received third-party coverage. See [34] and [35]. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've argued for the notability of this article before in this post, and that argument still stands, although I have changed my mind about the bio article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage in secondary sources. Also, FWIW it's common enough in the curricula of pedagogical programs that I've seen to convince me it's not a fringe theory. Can't speak for the notability of its creators, but the concept, to my eye, passes. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This concept is now being covered at professional education conferences. Various searches through article databases shows expanding coverage in the literature. If it is a viable epistemology, there should be references to the idea from before the theory was developed. This would actually lend proof that the creators are on to a real idea and didn't just make up a new idea for attention. - grandeped (talk) 016:19, 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 redirect to Heutagogy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Hase[edit]

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

Inventor of a very minor theory--see the adjacent AfD for heutagogy. much of the material is identical in the two articles. Of the 3 refs, 2 are his own works, the 3rd is an unrefereed conference paper. His own single significant book, listed here, is merely in 62 libraries according to worldcat---utter insignificance for a work in a major subject field.

As far as I can tell, he is currently not professor anywhere; his highest rank was Associate Professor in a minor university. Trying to get two articles -- one of the person and one on the person;'s theory , when they are each of very borderline importance, is a standard promotional technique--it always calls for careful checking. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Two articles is excessive - the concept may have gained some traction. I !voted weak keep there, but the guy does not pass GNG or ACADEMIC. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gaijin, no individual notability. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heutagogy. I previously argued for this article to be kept in this discussion (which I recommend the other participants read, as it is directly relevant), but on reviewing the article again I have changed my mind. While WP:PROF says "criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea ... in their academic discipline", I concede DGG's point about the significance of the concept of heutagogy, given the WorldCat listings. Also, there doesn't seem to be any significant sourceable information that isn't already covered in the heutagogy article, meaning it would be hard to write a biography that didn't significantly duplicate the heutagogy article. I think that heutagogy passes WP:GNG, and if that article is kept I think that keeping this page as a redirect would be more useful than deleting it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mr. Stradivarius, given that he has changed his opinion (out of respect for which I did not nominate this a while ago). Please note that both articles are listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Stmullin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heutagogy, which looks likely to be kept. No independent notability, but I would remind our American friends that "professor" is a much more senior position here in Australia than it is in the United States. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep/delete? with GS h-index of 16. There may be room for one article but not for two. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

the h-index falls to about 12 if you remove self-citation by him and close associates. If we decide to keep one of the articles,and I think people are more likely to look for the term than the person, as the term will be encountered and not understood. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cerchi nell'acqua[edit]

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

Not notable. 2 episodes only. Unsourced, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (media) Flat Out let's discuss it 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about the program indicates notability rising to WP media standards. There is an Italian WP article about the show, but it is practically unsourced and appears to be original research. No substantial or reliable third-party coverage. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice to have a cross-language article for it, but there's just not enough to support it, nor enough to make non-Italian speakers even venture to its native article to fix. — Wylie pedia 08:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Museum[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources on the page at all, and a gooogle search reveals...the website, the wikipedia page and three unrelated projects. Fails WP:N. In addition, a notability template has been there since 2008. Swordman97 ^{talk to me}

Weak keep. There is also a "World AIDS Museum," which is connected to Magic Johnson and seems to have more reliable sourcing available. I found two weak sources for this article [36] and an Examiner article that seems to be blocked. I think this article could be expanded to cover the larger project; if it is, enough sourcing could likely be found. Perhaps it could be renamed "AIDS museums," or something like that? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are some issues with the article, namely that it's quite likely a copyvio, but there are enough sources about the museum to ensure that it meets WP:ORG. Sources not present and tags present speak to BEFORE, not notability StarM 01:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename this isn't a second vote, I forget how to strike. I've cleaned up the G11 and G12 issues ad added sourcing. The article should be kept, however I think it should be renamed as AIDS Museums in America or similar as there's another in development and other countries have AIDS museums so this may need DABing. Should this not close as a flavor of keep, would the closing admin please userfy it for me? Thanks! StarM 00:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep, edit, develop Wikipedia. --do ncr am 02:41, 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 merge to Venetian independence referendum, 2014. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Republic (2014)[edit]

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

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

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

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

I proposed this article "Venetian Republic (2014)" for the deletion because an unrecognized state can't be declared after an online survey and an informal declaration by a group of people because if those were criteria to create an unrecognized state we would have more than new 50 countries today. Moreover, the sources used don't consider it as an unrecognized state.--Ghepa90 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real entity, and could only be discussed in the context of Venetian separatism: the vote is already covered in Veneto#Venetian_nationalism. Not sure this is sufficiently plausible a search term to redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AfD tag is not on the article, can someone correct?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename. Besides the problems pointed our above, it seems that many votes came from abroad, people voted twice, and so on. See here about that. The central point, however, is that in order for a self-proclaimed geopolitical entity to be considered a state, this entity must satisfy certain criteria (see about that Self-declared states): and this is clearly NOT the case here. On the other side, what happened is IMHO surely notable, so one could keep the article with another (not misleading) name, like "Web Referendum for Venetian Independence (2014)", or move the content to another article already existing. Alex2006 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In editing this article I took the same position I did when the article for the Republic of Crimea was prematurely created with the article stating it was an "unrecognized state" before any official referendum occurred. (Crimea's March 11 declaration that caused that article to be created was more of a pre-declaration statement of their intention to declare independence in the event of a referendum than an actual declaration). My proposal then was to have the article state instead that it was a "proposed state" rather than an "unrecognized state". I think the same can be applied here. No official referendum has been held therefore you cannot say this is an unrecognized state. If this article is to exist, it should state that the Venetian Republic is a proposed state. "Unrecognized state" doesn't make sense as something to add to the article until an official referendum is held and a majority vote establishes an independent republic. Since both the referendum and this declaration was done by "activists" and not the regional government then I would agree that the legitimacy of this article is in serious question (which is different from the Crimea situation). So I don't really think this article needs to exist but my edits were simply to improve the article while it exists. --Stan2525 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stan! The problem, as you say, is that this referendum has been held by a private organization, and according to many fonts its regularity is strongly in doubt. The activists don`t control the territory, and no state in the world is recognizing the Venetian Republic. Nevertheless, the info in the article is surely notable: the Italian media wrote articles about the referendum, so it think that there is space for an article. Let`s wait for some other opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Delete Hi. I support this deletion because it is not so easy to declare an unrecognized state. Unrecognized state means that the state is not recognized by some countries or by anybody, but de facto it exists (institutions, police, army, IDs...) and it is de facto independent. I study in Milan, but I am from Belluno and I can assure you that all Italian institutions are working there, so nothing has changed.--93.32.115.154 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Delete I support the deletion simply because the venetian republic doesn't exist. It is just a folkloristic indipendence made by a small group of people which want to challenge the government and delete all the tax. They don't have a real support by the population.

Oppose/Keep. I wouldn't have started the article yet, but the issue is notable and I don't see why and how it would be unencyclopedic. I see people talking about the referendum, but the article has little to do with it. I think we should keep this article: the Venetian Republic proclaimed by Plebiscito.eu might not be an unrecognized state, but it is surely a notable political organisation with a widespread structure. It needs an article anyway. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a widespread structure" mean? Are already in function a government, departments, police, army, schools, post, a tax collection service, and so on? Alex2006 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A political organisation with a widespread structure, that's what I meant. The "Venetian Republic" might not be an unrecognised state by Wikipedia (or any) standards, but it is definitely a political organisation to reckon with: in that capacity, the subject is worth an article. --Checco (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that here there is some confusion. Republic is a form of government, not a political organization among private persons (in this case the name of the thing is party). But in the article it is clearly stated that "The republic was declared on March 21, 2014 in Treviso" and "On March 24, the republic started to seek international recognition and diplomatic ties.". An encyclopedia should inform people, not confuse them (or, as in some case, increase their confusion :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, but I preferred not to edit the article while it is up for AfD. "Venetian Republic" is the name of the political organisation the article covers; that such political organisation, which is opening "public offices" all around Veneto and issuing decrees, can be described also as an unrecognised state is a matter of discussion, while it is out of question that the subject is notable. --Checco (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a notable subject deserves its own article: there is already an article about Venetian nationalism, I would say that this is another episode of it, and can find its place there. Alex2006 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Delete. This article does not respect all Wikipedia criteria. It is neither an unrecognized country nor a declared country, because there are no institutions who have taken the control of the region or at least of large part of it. It seems just a political propaganda that must not be included in an encyclopaedia.--79.43.111.232 (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit the article to reflect that it is a "proposed state" not an "unrecognized state". Here is how I edited the article to reflect that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venetian_Republic_%282014%29&diff=prev&oldid=604150768 I am basing my position on the fact that the article for Republic of Lakotah exists for a "proposed homeland" and has not been deleted, the Republic of Lakotah was declared also by activists, not the tribal government, just like the Venetian Republic was declared by activists and not the Veneto government, similar to this case. I think that article establishes a precedent for keeping this article, although as I said, it must use the term "proposed state". So that's why I'm voting Keep. And if that article for the Republic of Lakotah wasn't there, I'd vote delete, but in the interest of consistency, perhaps we should keep this article. --Stan2525 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stan2525 [Soffredo] 16:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was neither properly formatted nor properly transcluded to the log. I have reformatted the nomination using ((Afd2)) and transcluded this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 13. Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim this "state" has to sovereignty is based on the results of a non-binding online poll open to anyone with internet access. I really fail to see how anyone could seriously argue that this is a legitimate state. In response to the comment below me, the article on Veneto already covers the referendum. A merge is therefore not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Veneto. Whether or not it's a legitimate state is irrelevant. This issue is clearly notable and has received coverage in independent sources, which include The Guardian. Nevertheless, this is already discussed in the Veneto nationalism section, and doesn't appear substantive enough to merit its own page. Why not just merge this stuff into the Veneto article? I think that's the real issue here. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Venetian independence referendum, 2014. This article is immensely misleading, with everything written with a lot more implied substance than it actually has. No reliable external sources treat it with the weight this article displays, and that is because all this is is an ideal in the mind of a few activists. The information would fit much better on another article, written with appropriate style and context. CMD (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have been reading for a couple of days the posts on www.plebiscito.eu, the "official" site of the republic. They are very few, while one would expect much more traffic if - as the activists say - 2.36 millions people voted for the republic. Alex2006 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Venetian independence referendum, 2014. It's very misleading to imply that this is somehow an independent state, and it is only a notable topic in the context of that referendum anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:48, 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 and salt, given this is the second SNOW nomination--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Heimermann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable serial "wannaba" politician, "known" for punking a incumbent mayor. reddogsix (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spectacularly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails GNG, not much else to say about this character. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone else (I wouldn't argue he 'punked' the mayor but turned the race into a national punchline); the subject is from where I am and also has a history of using Wikipedia to self-promote themselves, so alarm bells are going off here as this seems to be the only article this new user has created. Nate • (chatter) 16:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not want a Wikipedia page about myself as I am non-notable. Please note the user who created the page is new and there are accounts that are always tied to the same article: Joe Luginbill. I believe Joe Luginbill created this page. Please Delete this page. Thank you. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the user above may (or may not) be the person in question (Wikipedia is a weird place) but even if we ignore that plea I still land on Delete for not passing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. There may be some Bio Living Persons issues as well, but I'm no expert on that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Asher alright. Asher Heimermann (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy finished 8 out of 8 in a race, another time he "ran" and didn't even make it on the primary ballot. He got less than 40 votes in one election. He is not only under "candidate who did not win", he is under "Candidate who got trounced by people who are ttally unnotable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to go ballistic, this is a living person y'know!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Cullen328 & Theodore!. Finnegas (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable college kid with a Wikipedia article. Maybe we should just block all high schools and universities from creating articles altogether. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert-Alain MOMNOUGUI[edit]

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

Just publishing books is not a claim to notability. Neither is being a member of some institute. My previous PROD with the same rationale was removed by an IP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree on this one, no substantive coverage anywhere, nor does he have a major impact in his field. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article on this person was deleted from the French Wikipedia following an equivalent process in 2009. AllyD (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has two publications by Éditions Universitaires Européennes, who appear to specialise in publishing people's theses and memoirs. No evidence found of attained biographical notability, either as author or functionary. AllyD (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 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 delete. Wizardman 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Savastano[edit]

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

Non notable minor league player. References on the page are all of the routine variety reporting on transactions and the like. The Plymouth article goes a bit deeper but its more of the "local boy living the dream" variety which isnt enough to satisfy GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO doesn't fail and it contains many references, although most of them are not reliable sources.
Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 12:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you discuss how he meets WP:BIO? Secret ^account 17:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 17:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and coverage is routine.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:32, 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.