< 24 April	26 April >

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Uviedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous afd was held up because of a belief that players who were once on the 40 man roster are notable.. but that is not part of the guidelines anymore. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill. Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBASEBALL and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:58, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Karthik[edit]

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

Other then a link to a page that is a site that was for another page the same user made-no indication of significance. Maybe in the future it might be, but does not look like it now. Wgolf (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also is a autobiography Wgolf (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage has the same article. Wgolf (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For "has" read "had"! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per RHaworth - Utterly promo shite. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7- Unremarkable person. Harsh (talk) 15:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saikat Ghosh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR, even the awards which are mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though his life changed at 12 when he started writing poetry. Fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. NawlinWiki, that was really witty.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks like a self proclaimed "soapbox" definitely delete. Science.Warrior (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Hernandez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Sources mentioned in previous afd arent enough to meet GNG. Standards have changed. Spanneraol (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 18:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable baseball player. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:11, 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 Speedy delete. In view of the several hoax and joke articles created by User:This is not my last name, who I've blocked, I have deleted this as vandalism (G3). No prejudice to re-creation if it can be shown to be notable. —SMALL JIM 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartozoology[edit]

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

Cartozoology is a fictitious field (finding animal shapes in street layouts), coined in the satire/humor publication Improbable Research. The joke has been covered and repeated around the web, but it should never be construed as a legitimate field. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a notable joke it could still have an article. But in the absence of evidence for that then Delete. Spinning Spark 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially WP:MADEUP, the sites that have picked this up word for word icluding the smoking-gun pretentious use of "paradigmatically " do not establish real notability.TheLongTone (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed speedy delete per WP:G12. The article is an exact match of the text at the top of this page. WP:COPYPASTE states that if a website has no mention of copyright status (such as is the case here), the website is assumed to be copyrighted. However, I would like TheLongTone to explain his concerns about copyright first, as there must have been some reason why the article was not speedily deleted immediately. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many hits including the exact text that I could not be bothered to track it down to it's original source & see what the copyright status was. There seemed to be ample grounds for deletion on other grounds.TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Luginbill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Joe Luginbill is non-notable. A number of Wikipedia accounts have been created by Joe Luginbill himself. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable, local figure. I would note that this deletion nomination is in need of being placed in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nomination process was incomplete here; the nominator created an improperly formatted nomination and then failed to add it to a daylog or a delsort. I've repaired the nomination and have transcluded the discussion as of April 25. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the article in more depth after repairing this nomination, I'm not seeing a strong claim of notability here. Apart from purely local committee and board positions, the only substantive notability claims here are "X number of views for a YouTube video", which is sourced only to a Facebook post and not to any reliable sources, and the fact that he hosted a talk show on BlogTalkRadio, which just like YouTube is not a platform that confers automatic notability on its personalities if they haven't broken out to garner real RS coverage. Virtually all of the sourcing is to local media, unreliable sources and passing mentions of his name in coverage of other topics, thus failing to constitute substantive coverage of him in a broad enough range of reliable sources to get him past WP:GNG. In other words, no evidence of properly encyclopedic notability has been provided here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely non-notable young man who is engaged in self-promotion. Wikipedia is not for that purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Cullen328. Finnegas (talk) 22:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Negrych[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH. Negrych won All-American status as a college baseball player twice.--TM 10:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Being an All-American in college baseball doesn't mean automatically notable.--Yankees10 18:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough coverage here to pass WP:GNG. And, WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it passes GNG. All of the coverage seems to be routine to me.--Yankees10 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo News ran multiple front-page "hometown-boy-does-good" feature articles about him during the time he spent playing for the Bisons. There's nothing "routine" about that. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see two there. Hardly "significant" coverage.--Yankees10 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems significant to me.--TM 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry but two is most certainly not enough to pass GNG.--Yankees10 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Two is certainly "multiple" sources, so that can certainly be enough to pass GNG. And even "multiple" sources are not necessarily required, but rather "generally expected," although I agree with you to the extent that in this case that I see no reason to dispense with the general expectation. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem with the Buffalo News articles is that they are both from the same publisher, and thus essentially only one source. On the other hand, there is some non-trivial coverage from the Pittsburgh newspaper. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the sources discussed above, I found a story by Yahoo! Sports [1] and two from the Orchard Park Bee [2] [3]. So I think he has enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG per Rlendog and Namiba. --do ncr am 03:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorm Soccer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but social media and blogging sites. Might be made up by the creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorm Soccer exists all over the world, but there isn't a standard name for it. That's why it was put up here, to have a standard name and definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiobash (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to document topics that are already notable. We don't promote or define topics that have not yet received coverage in reliable sources. A blog would be a better choice of platform. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about a neologism that fails the General notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable and borderline nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not be less notable or more nonsensical if it tried. Per the above arguments. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if it becomes notable in the future, and there are several people trying to force the trend, it's not notable yet. SPACKlick (talk) 12:16, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream report[edit]

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

This article is about a computer program that fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its field. Coverage on the product is scant and promotional. Its only real claim-to-fame is a minor, nonnotable award [4]. Furthermore, it reads like an advertisement and its creator has a history of creating promotional content. Them From Space 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure advertisement. Nominate for speedy deletion. -Sigeng (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:B2B. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I have made significant edits that are intended to remove the appearance of advertisement while still highlighting the specialized nature of industrial reporting and this unique product for that market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.102.104 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still speedy delete. Unless you have third party reliable sources to demonstrate corporate notability. -Sigeng (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability. a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 21:53, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Masika[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this magazine. All ghits I can find are press releases or promotional blurbs. bonadea contributions talk 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-or possibly merge into a list if there is one? Since I'm not sure about this thing at all. But for now delete. Wgolf (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article posted by COI editor, who is also doing some disruptive editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now semi-protected the page because of the repeated removal of the AfD notice, and warned him to cease doing this and blanking articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Just to note that I had already deleted the article before Arxiloxos posted their comment. Spinning Spark 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wellz Fargoe[edit]

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

Not sure if this really deserves a page-he was accepted into these sports but never played the games. also a odd add on the top not sure why a sound cloud is there Wgolf (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that oddly the name is different even in the article. Wgolf (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Nothing here that would support a finding of notability even if verifiable, and as best I can determine, it isn't verifiable either. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as having no credible assertion of notability: notice that the user who created this (autobiog?) has had a page with the same content rejected several times as AfC: see User talk:Denfield21 and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Denfield baptiste. PamD 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy be good also, or just close this AFD now even be great. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with speedy here, but keeping in mind that CSD#A7 requires that there be no credible assertion of "importance or significance", not "notability", and the claim that he was in the NBA D-League might get over that lower barrier--but then there's only a vague assertion that he was on a "skills team", not an actual D-League roster, so even though playing in the D-League probably can get you past the A7 line, the assertions here don't make it. A WP:SNOW delete close of the AfD would be OK too, but I've read somewhere in the past that unless there's an urgency, one should wait at least 24 hours before snow-deleting an article, just to make sure all time zones have a chance to chime in. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No other than the nominator !voted delete, one keep !vote plus nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute of Refrigeration[edit]

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

This has had a tag on it for 33 months and I am beginning to wonder if this is the same company as Institute of Refrigeration. Laun chba ller 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - concerns allayed.--Laun chba ller 07:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a reputable, innocuous international organization. It produces a journal on refrigeration, International Journal of Refrigeration, that is published by Elsevier, per http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-refrigeration/. AFD is not suitable for calls for cleanup, or for speculation. --do ncr am 01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is for notability tags, I should've been clearer in my message. My point was that other article had been deleted as non-notable at AfD.--Laun chba ller 09:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the International Institute of Refrigeration is not the same as the Institute of Refrigeration. One has a respected journal. Other has a newsletter. Clear from short time browsing Google. I think the nom is mistaken. --do ncr am 11:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I am happy to withdraw this, though I want answers regarding its notability tag.--Laun chba ller 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Call for closure with Keep then, the nomination is withdrawn and there are no !votes for deletion. --do ncr am 09:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how do I do that?--Laun chba ller 09:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AFD discussion is closed, it is explained that a nominator can close a discussion under current situation (that no votes for deletion are present). Follow instructions there. If instructions there are not sufficient, please ask for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion (and point out how you find the instructions inadequate, if you do find them inadequate). It would be a service saving time of others likely to come consider this case in the next days and/or weeks, if you would figure it out and close this properly. Sincerely, --do ncr am 02:07, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts History Museum[edit]

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

Has a single reference of questionable significance. Most content is unreferenced, and there is a strong promotional streak running through the text. LukeSurl^{t c} 13:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This museum has actually received coverage in multiple reliable sources: Los Angeles Times [5]; KNBC [6] (video); Los Angeles Daily News [7] (reprinted at SFGate.com [8]), [9]. My !vote is a little "weak" because (1) the nominator is right about the excessively promotional and puffery-laden tone of the article, which does set off an alarm bell and at minimum needs to be cleaned up; and (2) there doesn't seem to have been much coverage since the 2011 reopening in Burbank, although it does get some other mentions [10] [11][12]. On balance I'm inclined to keep this assuming we can strip it down to NPOV factual content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a museum, open to the public. If the article is promotional, it should be edited, not deleted. --do ncr am 01:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure of my vote yet - but the question is it notable not if it is open, Museum's are not inherintly notable. The sources may be nothing more than local interest coverage but should be at least put in the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if more of the above references could be integrated into the article but generally they are about local interest rather than the notability of the museum. My vote would be Weak delete on notability grounds.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's notable enough to try and salvage it. It might be worth a rewrite using a NPOV. If that doesn't work, it might be time to either delete or WP:TNT. I'd try a general rewrite first, removing all of the promotional content and stripping it down to encyclopedic and verifiable info QueenFan (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears WP:BEFORE reveals coverage from some major reliable sources. Everything else such as a lack of references, tone, and due weight are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Mkdw ^talk 18:54, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Francis Crosby[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - no title fights Peter Rehse (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. Even if the claim he fought several boxers who became world champions is true, he didn't fight for a major title and notability is not inherited.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:34, 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 speedy delete. G7, since dkbot apparently wants it removed. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Bolde[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Article was PROD and seconded but at the last second, the article creator removed it. JDDJS (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in media (mainly just mentions in articles on Godzilla) and all roles are small/minor. No awards or other indications of importance. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A short list of minor roles, with no awards and no real coverage in independent sources. Hopefully in a few years, he'll be ready, but definitely not yet. Moswento ^talky 13:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Administrators: please delete ASAP. Requesting expedited deletion, please. Thank you.dkbot ^talky 14:52, 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. There's no doubt that there are sources which talk about this. The only question is whether they are independent, reliable sources. The consensus here seems to be that they are not -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel UFO incident[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources, and I doubt that any can be found; I certainly didn't find any with a web search.

The main source for this article is a website called ufoevidence.org, which copied an article from about.com (dead link). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but this incident is very widely covered in books on ufology.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Spinning Spark 14:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a fairly well known UFO incident, and it is even listed in: "list of reported ufo sightings" on wikipedia. I'm not sure

why this would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyam (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a review of sources posted by User:Spinningspark, this topic passes WP:N. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed in Wikipedia (see year 1994): List of reported UFO sightings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.91.252 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 April 2014
- That is irrelevant to the deletion debate. We don't treat Wikipedia as a reliable source, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Spinning Spark 10:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another credible source to support the article's validity: [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.91.252 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 April 2014
A couple of points on conventions here:
1. Please sign your posts
2. Please do not alter the posts of others as you did here, here and here. I have reverted those edits. If you are user Shinyam, as I suspect you are, then you should log in before making such alterations. In any event, we would prefer you not to alter posts people have already replied to and instead make a new post. If you wish to retract something strike it through ~~like this~~. Spinning Spark 10:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. Newbie here. Shinyam (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than UFO books/authors which are not independent of the topic they are promoting. I could find no coverage by news sources that would make this incident notable. See Voronezh UFO incident for an example of reliable, independent sourcing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not accurate. From InfoTrac I got (not sure if the links will work, it's a paywalled site);
- Bronwynne Jooste, "US researcher causes stir with aliens probe", The Weekend Argus, p. 11, 13 September 2008.
- Tom Powell, "US film maker in city to probe UFO sightings", Cape Times, p. 4, 26 August 2008.
- Benjamin Bell, "Film takes closer look at African UFO `Sighting'", The Boston Herald, p. 20, 31 May 2009.
...and from HighBeam Research (also paywalled, but you should get the lede text);
- Linda Matchan, "An out-of-this-world assignment", The Boston Globe, 7 June 2009.
- Another link [20] to the Cape Times article.
A lot of this coverage is about John E. Mack's investigation into this incident (or the film subsequently made of it) and seems to be itself notable. By the way, if you are relying on Gnews to find news articles I think the archive search has become thorougly broken, it no longer seems to find anything other than recent material. I really do not believe there were no news items on Princess Diana between 1990 and 2009, which includes the year of her death. Spinning Spark 14:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are about the film or the filmmaker. Do you have any sources that cover the alleged incident only - independently of the claims of the film or the filmmaker? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain a bit further. Our ostensible article concerns extraordinary claims i.e. space aliens landed and spoke with schoolchildren, so we need to find objective, non-fringe sources rather than the claims of Randy Nickerson and John E. Mack that are associated with the promotion of a film. So far, I don't see evidence of notability for the "incident", but possibly for a film about it, and given that, it's possibly deserving of a paragraph at John E. Mack. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles are about the film, but they also discuss the incident. For instance from the Cape Times;

During morning break on September 14 of that year, 62 schoolchildren between the ages of eight and 12 saw a strange craft land 150 metres from the Ariel School in Ruwa, from which two small beings emerged which were described as having "big eyes like rugby balls". The children's individual descriptions of the phenomenon were so similar that news of the sighting spread around the globe.

I'm not going to go looking for reliable sources claiming this to be true. There won't be any because it is a heap of bollocks. That does not mean that the incident is not notable—it has still had a lot of coverage. Spinning Spark 15:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean we should find RS claiming it to be true. I meant we need RS showing in depth coverage of reports of the incident itself. If all we've got is sources describing it in relation to the promotion of a film from the filmmakers perspective, it's impossible to write an objective article about the incident itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this article from Bulawayo News 24. They do mention Mack's visit but nothing about the film. Spinning Spark 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-While it could be interesting-you can't possibly have a page for everyone who claims to have seen a UFO-which of course they really are weather balloons really most of the time-which I heard a news story on why people tend to think at times the weather ballons are UFO's I don't remember what it was though. Iffy on this. Wgolf (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly leaving a redirect. I removed the unreliable sources (e.g. YouTube videos and a loon website) and we're left with an interview with Cynthia Hind and a book by Cynthia Hind. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:JzG: did you see/read the sources listed above in this discussion? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent sourcing, notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are some sources but I'm not sure they constitute (together) significant coverage in independent sources. Maybe they do, I dunno. All of the sources seem to have the same genesis and it's not really clear whether that's the kids or Hind. Stalwart111 12:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No convincing policy-based arguments to keep the article. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safeconcerts[edit]

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

This article has referenciness but the references turn out to be casual namechecks, not one of them is actually about the subject of this article and in virtually every case the only reason safeconcerts is mentioned at all is because they are quoting (usually very briefly) Derren Nugent. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Wouldn't they be quoting Nugent because he's representing Safeconcerts?~~ Anyway, the BBC News article, aside from spotlighting Nugent's comment in a speech bubble (and noting he's representing Safeconcerts), specifically endorses Safeconcerts in a paragraph within the 'Avoiding scam websites' section. The Daily Mail, while tabloid, is a popular middle market. The first article calls Safeconcerts "an online directory of reputable ticket merchants", ~~and the second article quotes Nugent (again noting the site he's from); neither are sensational tabloid stories~~. That the BBC and Daily Mail would each cover Safeconcerts more than once speaks to its enduring notability. The NHS endorses the site's 'Festival survival guide' as a "useful link" within a page entitled "Festival health", which seems fairly important. ~~Nugent (again of Safeconcerts) being quoted about a tour by a star like Madonna in a paper like The Scotsman also seems noteworthy~~. The other smaller papers are not merely mentioning Nugent, they're promoting the site Safeconcerts (one of the Echo cites quotes Nugent, the other two newspaper articles don't even mention him). Safeconcerts might not be the sole subject of the cites given, but per WP:N, it "need not be the main topic of the source material". For what it's worth, Safeconcerts was already used as a cite in 24 Wikipedia articles. Culeygirl (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The official Leeds Festival site[21] and another BBC article[22] have covered Safeconcerts, and I'm sure we can agree these are not trivial mentions. Billboard magazine also mentions it here: [23]. Mentions in The Guardian[24] and the Daily Record[25] are more brief, ~~although The Guardian actually linking Safeconcerts within an article amounts to more than a passing mention, it's an endorsement~~.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Culeygirl (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "covered", you mean "namechecked". That is not coverage. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Even myriad passing mentions of the subject related to its operators aren't enough to substantiate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Those provided above are, almost without exception, the barest of passing mentions. "so-and-so from x" or "x spokesperson, so-and-so" is not in anyway "significant coverage". Those sources include nothing we could possible use to verify content in an article. Simply linking to a site is not an "endorsement" and to suggest as much is simply dishonest, especially given several of those news sites include specific disclaimers disavowing responsibility for the content of external sites like the subject. That's not much of an endorsement as far as I'm concerned. Again, we need significant coverage not just passing mentions. Stalwart111 03:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To say that the 11/11/10 BBC News link and the Leeds Fest link are only fleeting mentions is a bald-faced lie and reflective of the "let's-delete-everything" culture around here. Also genuine endorsements from the Mail, National Health and a couple other UK papers. 82.132.236.8 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.132.236.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mail only namechecks the organization while actually talking generally about festival safety and National Health only provides a link to their website. The other sources seem to be just mentions also in the context of discussing other things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Latitude Festival also promotes the site, so i have added it to the article and have removed the citations that are basically a brief quote from the founder (Guardian, Scotsman etc). When the Latititude, Leeds and BBC news citations are considered (as well genuine if more brief endorsements from other websites), the subject seems to meet notability. I dont know how the BBC citation can be dismissed when safeconcerts is mentioned several times and a screenshot of the website is even presented - Can't touch the demon (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could provide a policy-based explanation of how the subject might "meet notability"? See WP:N, WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS for examples. This ongoing suggestion that a passing mention in a newspaper constitutes an "endorsement" from said newspaper is nonsense. Stalwart111 05:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the papers arent brilliant citations, Stalwart (i removed three), but given the nature of the language used i would say the remaining ones are endorsements. Its not just about papers anymore though. Two major festivals have most definitely endorsed safeconcerts on their respective websites. The BBC article is certainly not just some throwaway mention as i said, the BBC are not only telling people to use the site, but they mention it several times in the article and present a screenshot of the page. safeconcerts is not the sole focus of any of the citations but that need not be the case. In my opinion it is notable per the notability essay - Can't touch the demon (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. You can't just take a passing mention in an article that is neutral or not-negative and call it "an endorsement". Being endorsed (though, again, a link to the subject site is not an "endorsement" either) by business partners like the concerts that safeconcerts is trying to keep safe, would likely not be considered an independent reliable source either. Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hung up on these "passing mentions", which i agree the article was mostly built on initially. Things have improved, with more substantial support. The BBC and MailOnline citations are even presenting screenshots of the safeconcerts website - Can't touch the demon (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is met per multiple reliable sources touching it. The three sources stressed by the above user assert notability, while the others provide some bolstering. 195.188.214.245 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out those reliable sources? Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a couple of new citations in which safeconcerts in the focus. One of these is from the National Fraud Authority's fraud reporting division. Also added a much better MailOnline article where safeconcerts is named as one of the 8 best music fest websites, and given considerable attention including a screenshot. I would now ardently support a keep - Can't touch the demon (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added a re-printed press release and a site that specifically doesn't endorse the site in question and actually disavows itself of any involvement: "Please note: Action Fraud is not responsible for the content on external websites". Significant coverage of the subject by the subject is not independent enough for the purposes of WP:RS. Stalwart111 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that the ILMC page was a press release (added in error, and now removed). I also concede that Action Fraud did not endorse safeconcerts, but a standard disclaimer on a website does not mean that safeconcerts was not the subject of the piece, so it is a valid source. You seem to have skipped over the MailOnline piece, which named safeconcerts as one of the "best websites" for music festivals, published a screenshot of the site, and gave a substantial paragraph about it - Can't touch the demon (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MailOnline article lists the subject as one of a large number of concert-related websites "worth a look". Given the author's other contributions (most of which are from his "The best websites for..." column) I think it's a stretch to consider a mention in one of those list as "significant coverage". Let's not describe a few lines and a disclaimer on the website of an organisation in the same business as the subject "a piece" like its some form of detailed editorial. It's not. Again, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It may be that this was created WP:TOOSOON and simply isn't ready yet. But given the sources provided so far, it seems awfully like a group of people trying to shoe-horn their product into Wikipedia to promote it. The straw-clutching isn't helping. Stalwart111 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If i am "straw-clutching" then what are you? You are suggesting that an editorially independent website has business links to festivals, when the festival pages actually say it doesnt. You are skipping over citations which clearly assert the notability of the subject, and then trying to delve into the history of an author to discredit him. I provide an article where safeconcerts is the subject, which you dismiss as not being an endorsement (although it is still coverage, so i change the wording on the safeconcerts article), then bang on about it not being a "detailed editorial" You also mention that action fraud is in the "same business" as the editorially independent safconcerts, which again reads like dodgy engineering/rigging from yourself. The subject has reliable sources, moreso than a ton of articles on wikipedia - Can't touch the demon (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I have zero interest in this subject, beyond whether or not in complies with Wikipedia guidelines. No vested interest whatsoever; couldn't care less if it stays or goes but I'm of the opinion (which is what this forum is designed to elicit) that this doesn't yet meet our inclusion guidelines and so should be deleted. You are free to disagree but decisions here and made on the basis of weight-of-argument. Policy-based arguments are always going to be more highly valued by a closing administrator and I'm simply trying to encourage you to make such an argument (away from non-policy arguments like the one that equates a passing mention in a newspaper with "endorsement"). None of these are "new" arguments which is why we have guidelines like WP:CORPDEPTH for subjects like this. The note to that guideline says specifically - "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all", which is contrary to what you're suggesting should be the case. Want to change policy? Go to WP:VPP and obtain a new WP:CONSENSUS. Until then, arguments like that aren't likely to be afforded a lot of weight. Stalwart111 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the notability essay when i was first urged to and think safeconcerts is notable, so my comments are policy based. I wont be spouting off an array of essay abbreviations because i dont know them. What i do know is that there are citations from MailOnline and other worthwhile sources, and per WP:N, notability is asserted. As for your reference to the exclusion of "best of" lists per WP:CORPDEPTH, the new MailOnline one doesnt simply include safeconcerts in some faceless list, it writes about the website and includes a screenshot of it. Citations like the ones i removed from the Guardian and Scotsman were very much passing mentions and soundbites from the founder. The article was crumbly at first but citations have been found to confirm its notability. However i seriously doubt there are any books published about safeconcerts, or any lengthy chronicles of its history in top newspapers, and i dont see how such attention could be expected of a watchdog - its not an article about a celebrity, musical recording etc., something that demands to be written about at length over the years - Can't touch the demon (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's another BBC News article in which the BBC have reprinted consumer complaints posted on Safeconcerts. I've added it. Culeygirl (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions of a subject don't count. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they dont, and if the citations were only "passing mentions", your vote would count for something. I hope the closing admin explores the article before paying attention to these eager-to-delete comments and acknowledges that "delete" votes were cast before notability-affirming citations were found. WP:N gives an example of a trivial mention in the form of: "In high school, he [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." Not sure how MailOnline writing a paragraph about safeconcerts and screenshotting it, and BBC News screenshotting it and actually copying text from the site are "passing mentions". Safeconcerts was the subject of an Action Fraud article. Festival Republic placed a paragraph on both the Leeds and Latitude Festival pages telling people to use the site. This "passing mentions" stuff is absurd, and in my subjective opinion i am finally tending toward a belief in the wikipedia "boys club" which i previously refused to believe existed - Can't touch the demon (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd probably give the benefit of the doubt to the borderline Mail reference (although the text there feels like an ad placement as much as anything), but the BBC article isn't independent, as an employee of the company was used as a source for the article. Not quite. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 6 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 Keep (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Philg88 ^♦talk 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QRE Plaza[edit]

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

Non-notable building fails GNG - one reference is a planning permit, the other the developer's website. Google search returns nothing of note. The Fatburger now appears to be closed, if that ever counted as a claim for notability Philg88 ^♦talk 08:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article: let's keep it.Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable building, sure many more sources exist in Mandarin.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a number of additional references have been added to the article, these all relate to tenants of the building and carry no weight per no inherited notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will end up being kept. That should tell you that you're wrong about it not being a notable building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 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 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. The container can be notable for the things contained, as with Indian Creek, Florida, a small barrier island. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Philg88 ^♦talk 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manwë (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, if there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A hatnote in Manwë will suffice. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ugh. That Manwe article really needs some work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy Healthy You[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. The references do not establish notability.

Side notes: the article is promotional in tone. TheCascadian 03:12, 25 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 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads more like an advertisement found in a magazine than an article containing useful information about a book. Szsmr (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's very adverty and lacks reliable third-party sources. Even if it is notable (and that's doubtful) it needs a complete rewrite so best to delete. WaggersTALK 12:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm in the process of trying to clean this, but so far it's not very promising. Part of the issue is that from my experience, Foreword isn't really usable as a RS because people pay to get them written. Per their website, you can pay $500 to get a Clarion review through them. Even the non-paid reviews are sort of suspect because of this (as I seem to remember that the site still tends to ask for money through various other means), but since this wasn't a non-paid review it's sort of a moot point to discuss it. I've removed it from the article because of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe salt. After searching a little more, I was unable to find anything other than the one newspaper source that's on the article. This just isn't a notable enough book to merit inclusion. Since this is the third incarnation of the page, there's a chance that this might be re-created, although I note that the previous versions were made back in 2010. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Councilor: A Journal of the Social Studies[edit]

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

Fails under WP:NJOURNALS , no reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, not cited by enough reliable sources, no Journal's citation report, no impact factor, no science citation index. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 02:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no information of use about the journal nor does it meet any discernible standards in WP:NJOURNALS. Szsmr (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many notable social science journals don't have an impact factor. None of them are in the Science Citation Index, because there's a separate index, the Social Sciences Citation Index. However, even the latter does not have many notable social science journals. The Councillor has been around for 75 years, so I'd not be surprised if some sources are around somewhere. I have no time right now, but will look later today to see what I can find in other databases. --Randykitty (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A journal for an organisation restricted to one US state, no evidence at all that it's of encyclopaedic significance. I've been around nearly as long, longevity doesn't make me significant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I cannot find any good sources and it doesn't appear to be indexed in any major database. Our specialist in this kind of journals, DGG, could not find any either. Does not meet WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only positive thing I can find to say is that the contributors are primarily not local, but from various academic institutions in the US. Thus it is potentially more important than a journal merely publishing the work of its own school. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Declare War (band)[edit]

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

Not a single source, no notability and there's really no reason for the band to be included on Wikipedia. Yeah, I like their music. But I just don't see a reason for any of this. Not to mention, all this information that is stated on the article is already included on their profile for Encyclopaedia Metallum; a website dedicated to metal bands. This page really does nothing for the fans of the band that they can already read from that website. Second Skin (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No discernible claim to notability. No sources. A Google turned up nothing that even comes close to ringing the BAND bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Article is really poorly written and completely unsourced, but it seems that they meet WP:BAND. Significant coverage in reliable sources includes [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]. Also has released two albums on a notable indie label, which is also home to numerous other notable bands (Artery Recordings). STATic message me! 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After taking a look at the sources you found I don't think they rise to WP:BAND (1) which is the only possible claim to notability. All of the sources are industry orientated in small publications with very limited readership. I am dubious about their editing and fact checking as well as the reality that coverage is often influenced by money and advertising. Also some of the coverage seems to be fairly trivial or little more than a press releases If you are inclined to accept as RS sourced that are so closely tied to a niche market and ignore the complete lack of any other sources, I could see an argument for KEEP. But it still looks a little too thin for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know releasing two albums on a notable indie label, which is also home to numerous other notable performers is also a point of BAND right? The five sources I cited certainly do meet WP:RS, see WP:IRS if you do not fully understand how to identify what is and is not a reliable source. Decibel, Revolver, Blabbermouth.net are all listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is essentially a guide for what are reliable sources for music articles. As for the other two, both have been running since 1999, so are not no small blogs. See for Lambgoat consensus seemed to be that they are reliable, just not for reviews. Do not just jump to conclusions about sources since you are not familiar with the subject matter. None are press releases and "complete lack of any other sources"? First there were none, and now there are no others? I found those in just a limited number of Google results, I did not even scratch the surface. STATic message me! 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous bands on Artery Recordings which don't have Wikipedia articles. In Dying Arms, Upon This Dawning, Casino Madrid and Shoot the Girl First are just some of the examples. I have no problem with I Declare War's music, I think they're a pretty awesome band in my opinion. But how in the world do they constitute for a Wikipedia article? They document NOTHING for encyclopedic entry even IF notable sources for them existed. And reading your comment above, you seem to kind of be taking the fact that the band aren't really notable for Wikipedia entry kind of personally. Second Skin (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Skin: You misunderstand WP:BAND then as I can tell by your response. How is there nothing for an encyclopedia entry if they are a professional band that has released numerous albums and has been covered in reliable sources? And that is quite laughable, I have never once in my life even heard of this band before this discussion, and have never listened to a single song by them, so how could I be taking this personally? STATic message me! 23:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then just as I suspected, their new album debuted at number 13 on the Top Heatseekers albums chart this week [31]. STATic message me! 01:40, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep in addition to the news postings is a review @ Alternative Press [32]. Another RS review or feature would be nice, but this will do. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 23:45, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leonard (director)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted, Mark Leonard (writer). This is just a re-created article, substituting 'writer' for 'director', but with even less evidence than the first time. ListCheck (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us completely disregard this WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of AfD. OccultZone (Talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you think the AfD should be disregarded 'just because you don't like it.' However,re-creating a deleted article, with even less substance, is a reason to re-deleting. Having a guest blog post on a significant venue won't change that. ListCheck (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make pages about those who have passed WP:Notability. OccultZone (Talk) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He writes for significant publications[33][34][35] (assuming they're all referring to the same guy), but nothing much is written about him, so he fails WP:GNG. Speedy delete if it has already been deleted before. Love his portrayal of Spock's father though. Clarityfiend (talk)

[36], [37]. It will fail WP:GNG only if nothing has been written about him, but he founded European Council on Foreign Relations, which is notable enough. He wrote a book in 2005, named Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century which has been reviewed by legit reviewers.[38],[39]. OccultZone (Talk) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a topic certainly doesn't fail GNG only if nothing has been written about it. Having something written is not enough, specially if what's written is a blog-post. The speedy delete of Clarityfiend above is well motivated, and so is my AfD. ListCheck (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you repeat yourself, your point is not a fact. CNN, Reuters, etc have got blog, so they don't become unreliable. You have got no reason to present that this article should be deleted, other than "it was deleted before", which is not really helpful. OccultZone (Talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:WRITER: Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century was widely reviewed.[40][41][42][43][44][45] Follow-up What Does China Think? also got some coverage.[46][47][48][49] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colapenninsula's finds are compelling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And helpful. OccultZone (Talk) 12:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Yadav[edit]

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

A large number of links have been added to papers reporting the candidates in the elections, however nothing obvious stands out that satisfies the notability guidelines for candidates for political office. Fæ (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fae can you let me know why you want to delete this page ?? Why not delete other politician pages .any specific reason.122.176.168.25 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to NPOL. An article about a politician running for office, needs to show they are notable in an encyclopaedic sense beyond their candidacy. Once a politician holds office, then they will satisfy the notability guidelines. This is not a judgement about the person, it is a question of encyclopaedia policies keeping a long term view. If the article is improved, it may be easier to see why Yadav is notable against the guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all are genius editors , please help me to improve this article and let me know what all information you need . Else if you decided to delete this article then let me know I delete it myself .Rubyyadav (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:NPOL says: "...Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Well, I see six good refs that discuss her in detail, which means she easily passes GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in response to the nominator's rationale, I find it confusing and somewhat misleading. The guideline basically says that if the subject is elected, etc, then they deserve an article, and if not, GNG is fine. so, I do not understand why anything "obvious" needs to "stand out". The "large number of links" simply needs to contain a sufficient number of good refs -- in this case, six, I think. And those are not to satisfy "notability guidelines for candidates for political office". They are to satisfy GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if the article satisfies GNG in the absence of being elected to a political post and is not a problem against WP:BLP1E, then the article should be kept. Which of the sources do you feel best demonstrate this, I had thought that Yadav was most notable for running in this election? --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to discuss her in detail, which is what GNG looks for, and there are probably more out there by now:

When you say "...I had thought that Yadav was most notable for running in this election?...", you seem to imply that it is important that she is notable for something else. Does it make a difference whether or not she is "most notable for running in this election"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it makes a difference. If a person is reported by the press for being a candidate then Subjects notable only for one event applies and there should be caution about interpreting whether newspaper coverage of the election is sufficient to create an encyclopaedia entry that is supposed to be encyclopaedic rather than news, and be of educational value for the next 100 years. The list of sources above seem more suitable to justify an article about the election, not necessarily BLP articles for everyone who is campaigning, some of whom may have had no national profile beforehand. Please keep in mind that newspapers are actively lobbied to create news at election time. --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are saying is the election is the event. She is known mainly for running in that event. The sources are really about her campaign. Hmmmm, those are pretty good points. Okay, I'm leaning toward 'delete' now. Let's hear what a few others say. Unless I see something compelling for a 'keep', I think 'delete' is where I stand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - The article already has been speedy deleted (CSD#A7) two times. Article created by a WP:SPA User:Rubyyadav, doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability guideline. I remember, AfDing similar articles. The subject is notable only for being a candidate for some political party in ongoing Indian general election, 2014, therefore, it falls under WP:ONEEVENT criteria and the subject does not qualify for inclusion. If the subject wins the election, or attracts media coverage for some other stuffs rather than being an electoral candidate, it'd be suitable for inclusion thereafter. For now, delete this non-notable article. Creator User:Rubyyadav is suggested to carry on his election campaign some other places as such, Facebook, Twitter, etc., Wikipedia is not Facebook. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no apparent need to protect the article, this would seem an over-reaction. --Fæ (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If some non-notable subject, is repeatedly being created, then, it is better to salt the page to save the community time, further on. It should not considered over-reaction, because this is why, WP:SALT do exists. It is the fourth time, I'm seeing deletion of the article on this subject. Two times in mainspace, one in userspace, fourth here, we are discussing about the same subject. Once, this subject qualifies for inclusion, we can simply ask an admin to remove the "protection from creation". For now, it seems reasonable to me, to protect this page from creation. If it was earlier, we had not been wasting our time, here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, though had our policies been explained more clearly for Yadav or her team we may not have ended up here either. Now that the new contributors understand more about the COI and NPOL guidelines, it would be nice to assume good faith from here on. This is not vandalism, neither does this appear a deliberate attempt to knowingly avoid policies. In contrast, Yadav's "official" photographs are a welcome and valid addition on Wikimedia Commons for our mission to preserve human knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly creating a non-notable article suggests the notion of vandalism and this is why we do practice SALTing. I'm not, against the subject or furious of the COI thing. We can AGF but can not really let a editor to carry on his vandal activities for the AGF sake. I've a simple concern, that this subject should be "prevented from creation" again, to save the community time now on. Other contribution from the editor, is most welcome, whether images or texts, to Wikimedia projects. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Anupmehta , this article create after election is over , this is not to promotion , I am winner for runner up of mrs. India queen 2013 . I ask for help to create this page according to that . I don't want to promote myself .Rubyyadav (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rubyyadav - Indian general election, 2014 is happening in nine phases, and it'd end up on 12 May 2014. Well, it is over at some places, and at the same time, awaiting to happen at some places. I'm, here, not concerned about the WP:PROMO thing, but notability standard. Subjects notable for one-event do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Yours is the same case. I see, there's some claim for "India queen runner up 2013" thing coverage, but where is the source? Present us, those sources, here or in the article. I've never heard of this "India queen" contest, not sure even this organized event, is notable itself. I do not see, anything substantial on Google or Indian newspaper archives search, as well. Let me assure you, being an Indian and a resident of Delhi, no one here, is against you, it is just that an article you wrote is not in compliance Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In answer to your question, why there are articles on other politicians on Wikipedia, and Why you can not have one, similar, is that, they are "elected representatives". Once you're declared winner (I wish you so), you'll qualify to have an article on you, here. Hope, it is clear. If not, feel free to ask me more questions. In the meanwhile, you may try editing Wikipedia, and learn how it works. And, it is AnupmehRa not AnupmehTa. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:49, 24 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as non notable person, The COI doesn't help neither. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:01, 25 April 2014‎
Delete and salt. Spinning Spark 18:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Industry of Russia[edit]

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

Poorly written (grammar and style) by Russian contributor User:Олег73рус. Interpunction issues. Formatting errors in references. Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The grammar is fine. The article layout is good. The concept is excellent and this is a notable topic. I want to see more articles about industry in countries. However, articles have to start with good references, and this one does not have those right now. Олег73рус, can you fix the citations to the articles you are trying to cite? Even plan URLs would be fine. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Being poorly written is NOT a valid reason for deletion (if it were, Wikipedia would shrink drastically). WP:FIXIT applies. Also, it should be Pipe industry of Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many of Russia's post-Cold War conflicts have had their genesis in pipe-laying and it makes sense to have an article about the industry that supports that decision-making. The industry represents a significant portion of the country's economy. Decisions about notability should be based on the sources available to support an article, not the sources currently listed in the article itself (which I agree are inadequate). This is a notable subject and the concerns above are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems. This 2009 analysis by the United States International Trade Commission gives a pretty good overview (p.IV-25) of the post-Cold War pipe manufacturing industry in Russia. Stalwart111 23:45, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Clarityfiend, the deletion rationale is invalid. On top of that, there are plenty of sources on this topic, including "Russian Pipelines", "Upgrading Russian enterprises from the value chain perspective: the case study of tube & pipe, and furniture sectors". I have moved the article to the correct capitalisation. Spinning Spark 18:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Clarityfiend, the deletion rationale is invalid. Beyond that, copyediting will fix the grammar and punctuation problems. This is an important industry in a very important country. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Jaffery[edit]

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

Not notable Harsh (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be contributed to meet WP:BIO. No sources are cited right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:58, 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 nomination withdrawn. Page redirected to Compressed earth block#Development. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch brick (stabilized earth block)[edit]

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

Probable hoax, unsourced for five years. Can't find a single reliable (rather than commercial) source which documents it as a type of brick.The nearest I can find is something called Dutch Masters Brick, which seems to actually be Dutch and a producer of brick or something which has been used in Irish building.But clearly not what this article is about! I find it hard to believe that "Dutch brick" would be a common term used for the bricks of houses in west Africa! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete By going back to the first version of the article and using it as a basis for searching I found this thirty-year-old Peace Corps newsletter which has a very passing reference to "Dutch Brick" as a type of well construction. Everything else I've found is either obviously irrelevant, traceable to us, or quite recent and therefore hard not to trace to us. It's possible that this was Peace Corps jargon of a certain era but I can't be sure even of that and certainly not of what it meant. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or expand and rename Dutch brick is clearly a notable, hard, paving brick as can be seen by an internet search and defined as such in Sturgis' dictionary. Bricks as described in this article clearly exist as stabilized, compressed earth block and stabilized adobe or stabilized mud block in general. So, the question becomes how obscure the "colloquial term" Dutch brick is and whether the article should be renamed something like stabilized mud block or merged into another article such as mud brick. Page 48 of this 1955 study of earth building techniques in Africa describes a Portland cement stabilized mud coating as "Dutch plaster", but I cannot find a reference for the Dutch brick described in this article. I must say I feel Wikipedia's policy on notability should be refined. I see the need for limiting articles on biographies, rock bands, organizations, etc. but sometimes the obscure, unpopular information in the history of building construction is the most valuable information. I understand that a non-notable topic may not deserve its own article but certainly can be included in a broader article as there is no notability standard for the information within an article. However, there is a tendency in the area of construction topics to give each small topic its own article. One advantage of this is interlanguage linking to similar topics. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sturgis definition is not for the same thing! And the problem I'm coming upon in this is that, at the moment, the only authority I can find for this definition of "Dutch brick" is the original, eight-year-old Wikipedia article, which was put in by an IP who gave no citations whatsoever. Notability doesn't even begin to be the issue; even the most minimal standard of verifiability is not met. We not only lack good sources, we lack bad sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with merging into mudbrick. These bricks, made on site using cement and local materials such as earth, sand and gravel, are more a type of concrete brick, but I do not see merging into the article on concrete either. To the development community what distinguishes them is that they are a cheap "Dutch" solution that can be made locally, not so much what they are made of. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content with sources. The Dutch bricks described in this article are real enough, and important in the developing world. It is a legitimate subject. Most search results use the term to mean bricks from the Netherlands - the Dutch have been making and exporting bricks for a long time - so perhaps there is a better title? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion looks good, but there still remains some dubious claims which need to be sourced and I'm not convinced that the article title is suitable either. "Dutch brick is a colloquial term for blocks formed by concrete stabilized soil used to form blocks" Says who? I see little evidence of it as an actual term, rather I see sources which refer to bricks exported from the Netherlands. How about Brick production in the Netherlands and you could include the other side of it in terms of production as well as the use of them in African development? That would be really notable I think and a more appropriate context. I'd then remove the current unsourced material about it being a term and change it so it is centred around the Dutch brick making industry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two completely different things. Dutch bricks made in the Netherlands could easily be the subject of an article - there are many sources that discuss them. They are kiln-fired clay bricks, often yellow, prized for their quality, exported to other countries, used for paving and so on. This article is about concrete bricks made of cement, sand and gravel, or cement and earth, made on site and cured in the open air, used for wells and houses in developing countries. They have nothing to do with the Netherlands.The name is just a slang term meaning they are not "real bricks", sort of like "Dutch oven". This article should kept but moved to something like "Dutch brick (concrete)". Aymatth2 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything much on so-called Dutch bricks, but there is quite a bit about Mexican concrete (as an admixture of dirt and concrete). See Google Book results, even filtering out the sources that simply juxtapose Mexican and concrete in discussion of other subjects. I am uncomfortable with what comes across as a bit disparaging. is there a more established name for this type of admixture? Can user:Giano or some other editor with expertise in the architecture field suggest better terminology for us to use to cover this subject more broadly? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to soil cement? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the uncomfortable feeling that there are three different meanings for this term:

Bricks made in the Netherlands - much the most common meaning for the term
Bricks with a trapezoidal shape suitable for lining wells in developing countries
Bricks made locally from cement and soil in developing countries

Often type 2 bricks are also type 3, but type 2 can be made with standard concrete using cement, sand and gravel, and type 3 can be rectangular, suitable for low-cost housing. The article as it stands blends types 2 and 3. Perhaps that is not a problem - but there must be a better name. WP is not a dictionary, but there seems to be room on each meaning to give a reasonable article with plenty of sources. Meaning 1 is clearly a rich topic, but I hesitate to rename this one to make room for it until this discussion is resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, some editors freak out if efforts are made to fix articles while they are part of a deletion discussion. This is unfortunate and goes against core principles, but it is what it is. If you are volunteering to work on it, I think userfication would be reasonable. As the article stands it has some problems. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the typical AfD article there are easily enough sources to show that the subject is notable, so the article should be kept. But the name is wrong. The term "Dutch brick" almost always means "Netherlands brick". And I have the feeling this article should be split into two, one about using cement and local materials (sand, gravel, maybe soil) to make bricks on site at low cost, and the other about using trapezoidal bricks to make wells, latrines etc. If someone can suggest reasonable target titles, I can do the move and split, and start one on the Netherlands bricks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase dutch brick is no hoax - it's an entry in the OED, for one thing. As there seem to be a variety of meanings, then this is a matter of disambiguation not deletion. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 23 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 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the disputed page and this discussion to Dutch brick (stabilized earth block) - I think. Before doing so I started Brick-lined well to cover meaning 2 above, copying some content, and copied some other content into Compressed earth block, which is where the original article probably should have redirected in the first place. This makes way for a proper article on the primary meaning of the term, which looks interesting.

The article is now a fork of Compressed earth block, into which it should be merged (is that grammatical?), but that is a different question. The article on Compressed earth block is hopelessly US-centric and unsourced. I may try to add some balance, I hope I have not muddled the issue too badly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten about this article and AFD and haven't been active of late. I think you've done an excellent job in sorting out the mess and you did the right thing converting the Dutch brick article into a general one and moving this. I think though you should just redirect this into Brick-lined well. Nomination withdrawn♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Glad to see the nomination withdrawn, and to see good work about trying to sort this out. --do ncr am 02:58, 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 keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schure[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC Harsh (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The longtime president of New York Institute of Technology (and subsequently of Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine )passes WP:ACADEMIC #6, so we could have an article about him. However, chunks of the current text of this very short article seem to be taken directly from his PCOM biography, raising possible WP:COPYVIO concerns. [50] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources describing this person are not presented. As the nominator says, this person may pass WP:ACADEMIC if independently published sources verified the content of the article, but none are here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless copyvio. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12. Unambiguous and foundational copyvio. I might change my opinion if someone actually takes the effort to replace the whole article with a new one using original text and proper sources, because the subject may well be notable as Arxiloxos notes, but there's nothing in this article worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comment
David Eppstein: Please provide a link to support your copyvio claim. All I can find on Google are Wikipedia forks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just before your recent edits to stub down the article, the version here used text largely or entirely taken from here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the copyvio portions. It does not appear to qualify for G12 since there is still non-infringing text left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF#C6. Thanks, KoH and Arxiloxos! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PROF#C6 is clear enough. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne[edit]

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

Promotional article for food writer. Worldcat shows about 100 copies of each of her two books--notable cookbooks typically have ten times that number.Two minor awards from non-notable sources presented as :major awards". Reviews and notices can undoubtedly be found, but we should be capable of distinguishing the important from the unimportant.

As for promotionalism, the worldcat listing for her first book says "Sue Spaull with Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne.", which means that she is the fired writer--one step up from ghost-writer--and the article even admits it: "she was hired to write..." DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill ghost writer, at least right now. I'd be willing to change my mind if better sources are found and added to the article. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has received extensive third party coverage from WP:RS and passes WP:GNG, Huffington Post, How to Cook for Food Allergies (showed coverage from BBC good food magazine), The Telegraph, and Huffington Post profile. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:16, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles noted by Valoem are definitely substantial in their coverage of this subject. The article needs work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knifer (musical)[edit]

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

A lack of independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had quoted from the original theatre programme, but the references have been removed. I will reinstate them. I have also seen the production a few times, and so I have first-hand experience of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Introspecta (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources need to be verifiable. Please read WP:42. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to have more information about this musical on Steven Moffat's page, rather than it having its own page? Or would the sources still need to be independent, etc? Introspecta (talk) 09:46, 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to locate coverage in reliable sources for this musical; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 07:54, 24 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was also unable to find anything on this, apart from passing mentions. I wouldn't merge any of the information with Stephen Moffatt, because it would be excessive detail. The current mention in his article is sufficient. Moswento ^talky 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can come up with some kind of independent coverage of this—even a review in the paper would be nice—it will be hard to justify keeping this. That's too bad, because I suspect readers interested in Moffatt and Dr. Who will come around looking for information about this early and unusual endeavor. But it is difficult to see how to fit any more of this info into the Steven Moffatt article: we could add a footnote if there were an appropriate source where readers could be sent for more information, but that's just the problem—it seems that there isn't any such source. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across newspaper articles with mentions of Knifer. I'll try and add it to the page, and you can see if that's enough.Introspecta (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't work out how to reference it properly. Could someone help me with it?Introspecta (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the reference. As it's only an article in a local newspaper, it's not enough to demonstrate notability. You would need something regional or national as well. Moswento ^talky 12:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. It was worth a shot.Introspecta (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thamizh Padam 2[edit]

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

No such film has been announced. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Thamizh Padam 2

Delete as being TOO SOON. The article is (mistakingly) more about the first film Thamizh Padam, with only has two unsourced sentences about the rumour of the 2015 sequel film. We can allow a proper recreation once filming has been announced and it gets more press. Until then this planned sequel can be mentioned in the parent article IF sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:18, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No announcement of its filming, this just seems to be a rumour or an idea at the moment. Moswento ^talky 13:41, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Canine Association[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG; not mentioned in any reliable sources; very promotional "one of the largest registries", "ACA's blue ribbon panel" etc. Note: articles for the 'rings' used as refs (and external links) were recently deleted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check the article talk page - it seems to be frequently blanked. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Promotional article written by a confirmed COI (see screen-name). Per the deleted material from the Talk page (thanks for the heads-up, nominator) [51], it appears to exist to issue "papers" to puppy-mill mongers. See also: [52]. My instinct would be Delete, or incorporate some of the puppy mill accusations from WP:RS into the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 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. Move to Shoe phone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaker Phone[edit]

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

Just a promotional stunt SI did back in the 90s. Not anymore notable than other gag phones, like hamburger phone. JDDJS (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shoe phone (currently a redirect to this title) and merge the content of this article with an article about shoe phones in general. There are a number of relevant sources including this article, this article, this book and various other sources. Between the two there should be enough for an article but it should be about the idea rather than a particular trademark. Stalwart111 02:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shoe phone, but make Maxwell Smart's the primary example, then SI, and finally O2.[53] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a shoephone article and merging this one in sounds great, but as no one seems to be volunteering to do it, I am saying delete. Should someone create it, then we can redirect but I don't see how the closing admin can close as merge to an article that doesn't exist. Spinning Spark 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spark, I'm happy to volunteer but I can't move the current title to the new title over the redirect (not an admin). If an admin was willing to close it on that basis and perform the move for me, I'd be happy to clean up the article itself. Simply creating a new article in place of the redirect would (I think) create an attribution issue for the current content. Stalwart111 01:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally like to move articles while an AFD is in progress, but it seems uncontroversial in this case so I just did it. Spinning Spark 02:17, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diono[edit]

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

No showing of notability per WP:CORP. Author has not shown that the corporation is or has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Rmosler | ● 05:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No notability per WP:CORP--Zipezap (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Diono is a very notable company in the child car seat segment. If you have kids, you'll certainly have heard of Diono, and its products are sold alongside other car seats brands like Evenflo, Safety 1st (Dorel Juvenile Group), Graco, Britax, Chicco, etc., both on-line and in-store in major retailers like Babies'R'Us, Walmart, Sears.
Admittedly, the article is lacking in information as it is rather new and still a stub, but that does not make Diono car seats any less notable.
As a matter of fact, for growing families that are having their third child, it is either buying the Diono Radian to fit 3-across, or buying a minivan, to fit all the kids in one vehicle. — Anthony Fok (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VoloMetrix[edit]

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

Notability. Appears to be a company that is starting up rather than achieving yet. Coverage is largely on them gaining funding. Sources include one paywalled research report, two articles written by the founder, a funding report, and a piece with a single paragraph on the promotion of an employee. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not including enough references at first- more coverage is now referenced. I'm new to editing wikipedia and so helpful guidance is appreciated. WikiLiv — Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 16 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy-could use some work I think. Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Project[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability as expressed through coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Six external links are given and all are, well, junk. This is self-published, this is user-submitted, this is some random video, this again is self-published, this and this are execrable cruft. Again, no indication of WP:BAND being met. This was twice speedily-deleted (in 2006 and 2013); it's time to torch it via AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore non-notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@Biruitorul, You must prove that those articles are self-published. I don't think so. And what a fail declaring this article self-published. First: it's written in Russian, not in Romanian (band members are Romanians, they don't know Russian). And article doesn't seems to be even submited by band to publisher - it is written not in Promo style, but in informational style, something similar like in Russian wikipedia. Second: article is published by Europa Plus - (one of) the most popular Russian musical radio station, and i don't think they will promote ”some shitty, anonymous Romanian band” (like you think).

I can say more, not only band is notable - it have also several notable singles, which entered in national charts in several European countries includin Romania!! For example look here > Template:RoNumber1s and you'll see that band entered several times in Romanian Top Charts.

In addition see section ”Awards and nominations”.

Jackmcbarn's opinion can be ignored (for partiality), because prior to this he Requested speedy deletion. How we see, this is not the case for ”speedy”.

Also take in consideration that article was kept on other 4 wikipedias, and thither it was not created by me. XXN (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I requested a speedy of the page in the past is no reason to ignore my opinion. In fact, considering an article on this band has already been speedily deleted 3 times, I'd say it strengthens the statement that they're non-notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that band was not notable several years ago does not mean that it is not notable either now, or in general will never be notable. We have to consider only the current situation, excluding (ignoring) previous deletions. XXN (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say to ignore my opinion because I tagged it for speedy? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you will try to obtain deletion at any price, in order to not compromise yourself for your speedy tag :)) XXN (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published source is not necessarily one published by the subject of the article, but is any source that has not gone through an editorial process and is user-generated.

Given that you've started putting this kind of thing into the article - which under no possible interpretation meets WP:RS - I think we can invoke WP:MASK: "the use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable."

Once the cruft is stripped away, there's really nothing left. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets at least the following criteria from WP:BAND:
- several singles in national music charts (Raisa #1 on four weeks in Romanian Singles Chart in 2005, Goodbye #4 in End-Year Chart 2011 (Romania), Raisa #51 in France Single Top 100 on 12 august 2006)
- nominated for a major music award (2008 MTV Europe Music Awards)
- several albums on a major independent Romanian label (two albums at Roton)

and on a more personal note, having more than 100 million views on their official Youtube channel surely says how popular they are. Razvan Socol (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note what WP:BAND states: a band "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria"; "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". While Fly Project may have been nominated for some award or had some song appear on some chart, that of itself does not necessarily guarantee notability. The lack of meaningful sources - and WP:GNG does apply here ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") - is glaring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that that if this were an American chart topping band there would be no question of deletion. We should keep this per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:IMBALANCE. Spinning Spark 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Kww just noticed, several of the charts they were listed as topping were WP:BADCHARTS. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are talking about this edit which still left a claim in the article that they topped the charts in at least eight countries. Still pretty impressive. Spinning Spark 16:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, do you have any evidence derived from reliable sources that indicates work by this group topped charts anywhere? What makes www.fly-project-la-musica.ru, the source for these claims, a reliable source? To ask the question is to answer it: there's no way this is reliable; it's merely a Russian translation of the band's own website. Fly Project can make whatever claims they wish; it doesn't mean they're true.

Before going on about "systemic bias" - which sometimes is a legitimate concern, but often is a way of validating trivia ("surely you don't want to remove material about that underdeveloped country, do you, even if it's garbage?") - you might want to do a little digging first. Frankly, I expect more considered reasoning from someone who's been editing Wikipedia for over 2600 days, of which the last 1800+ have been as an administrator. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about music charts and couldn't tell a good chart from a bad chart. Your original comment left the impression that that all the charts had been identified as bad charts (although I realise that is not what you actually said). I was merely pointing out that only two of the ten claimed charts had been removed on those grounds. If they are really not chart-topping I might change my !vote, but at the moment that claim is unchallenged, at least in the article. Spinning Spark 00:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'm not sure what you mean by challenging a source within an article, though I did tag the questionable source if that's what you mean.

Anyway, the way I've always understood AfD works is that you examine the notability of a topic based on the sources presented in the article and whatever else you may be able to find, and that AfD itself is a perfectly valid venue for challenging the reliability of sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Spinningspark. Realistically, this is a nice article. The music they make is really nice, just search Fly Project Toca Toca on youtube. There is no reason to delete this article. Biruitorul is one of the organized group who systematically seek out and destroy Romania-related articles on English wikipedia using various WP:*** tools to "justify" their actions. This group deleted my article in 2008 and as a result I stopped contributing to wikipedia at that time, as there is no point to contribute content or financially support a site that tolerates this kind of actions from this sorry excuse for a loser and his group, and permits them to delete other people's work. Looks like 6 years later he's still at it! Likely getting paid to do this. I would suggest a better organization for wikipedia - like stackoverflow, where any user can get credibility by contributing more and more, rather than the wikipedia style where the users who were first got credibility and superuser status for free, and now they get to decide who else may get privileges, if any, after many years. Too bad. Look to stackoverflow for inspiration and stop people who did not earn their privileges from deleting Romania-related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, a vote filled with personal attacks and meaningless rationales ("this is a nice article") should be summarily discounted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:21, 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 Merge to Yamabiko Corporation. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kioritz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is a cluster of new articles related to this one, including also Yamabiko Corporation, Shindaiwa, and Echo tools. Shindaiwa also is under AfD discussion. I would suggest looking at all three together. Perhaps there is enough there for a single, merged article, most likely for the 'mother' company: Yamabiko Corporation. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The parent company appears to be traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange; there appears to be a substantial number of reliable sources available for further development of that article. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yamabiko Corporation. Insufficient content and sourcing to justify a separate article. --DAJF (talk) 13:25, 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 Merge to Yamabiko Corporation. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shindaiwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is a cluster of new articles related to this one, including also Yamabiko Corporation, Kioritz, and Echo tools. Kioritz also is under AfD discussion. I would suggest looking at all three together. Perhaps there is enough there for a single, merged article, most likely for the 'mother' company: Yamabiko Corporation. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The parent company appears to be traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange; there appears to be a substantial number of reliable sources available for further development of that article. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yamabiko Corporation. Insufficient content and sourcing to justify a separate article. --DAJF (talk) 13:23, 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 Withdrawn, And again cocked that one up too!, No bias whatsoever Just simply didn't do enough research - Lesson learnt, Anyway Thanks again Oakshade for the FR Wiki. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twisto[edit]

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

Small non notable bus company, Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is the primary transit system of Caen, including being the operator of the Caen Guided Light Transit, non-notable? The French Wikipedia article is much more extensive with government sources dating back to the 1950s because it's the primary transit system in Caen. The article of the main transit system in an equivalently populated metro area in the US, say Des Moines, Iowa, would never be considered for AfD. ~~Might this be a case of systemic bias?~~--Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A stub article should not be confused with the importance of the subject matter. This is not a minor bus company it is a public transit operator. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:24, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian farm culture[edit]

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

Whilst I believe the creator had all good intentions, this article is highly problematic: (1) It has few or no sources. (2) Its scientific quality is low. It is not an objective presentation, and it contains original research. (3) Nothing has been improved since 2011, when maintenance tags were inserted. Otherwise, its equivalent in the Norwegian Bokmål & Riksmål Wikipedia, Det gamle bondesamfunnet, was deleted in March 2012 based on the same reasons. No More 18 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of the scholarly accuracy of this article and cannot read any Scandinavian language, but bondekultur seems to be an encyclopaedic topic judging by the number of times it is referenced in the Norwegian, Swedish, and the other Norwegian Wikipedias. As I say, I can't read anything, and a lot of it does not have preview anyway, but Norsk bondekultur gets a lot of book hits. Some of these seem to be about the topic. eg [54], or have a significant section on it, eg [55]. Provisionally, I would favour stubbing the article to remove dubious material, but leaving it in existence for someone who knows the sources to expand. Spinning Spark 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes the article difficult to attack (in addition to foreigners' lack of in-depth knowledge) is that each fact is more or less correct; it is the constellation, i.e. how facts are put together, that makes it incorrect. Furthermore, when reading the text, one will soon recognise the style of an essay. ('The culture was rich, more so in the way that each valley had their distinct varieties and modifications. Outsider were often impressed, and said so.) This revision from 2011 might highlight what I find especially problematic. By the way, bondekultur means farmer culture. No More 18 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as original research. Furthermore, the article combines two subjects that may be (or are already) sufficiently covered by the articles History of Norway and Norwegian romantic nationalism. No More 18 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by nominator. Your deletion nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as the article is based upon OR and private theories about long lines in history. And because it uses old and biased ideas from the national romanticism in order to interpret iron age history. Be --Orland (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above I am also quite certain the text has been written with the very best of intentions and by several people very proud of where they come from. Norway has a long and rich cultural heritage stemming from farms, farmers and farmworkers, but I guess this is the case for all developed countries, we were all once farmers. As stated above the article does contain facts, but I agree that the way they are put together is the authors' personal opinion. If possible I would have loved to keep a very shortened version, but at present there is nothing in this article to keep. Three references are from 1915, 1948 and 1795, i.e. the references is not notable and does not support the article, they are also very much out of date. The forth reference is accessible from Norwegian ip-adresses. I have accessed this source which is an antology of articles: Continuity and change: aspects of contemporary Norway (1993) Scandinavian University Press isbn 8200211169, and searched it electronically. This book is in english and does not contain the word bondekultur. The text contains the word farmer 4 times. I have looked at the article mentioned as source and it is not an article about Norwegian farmer's culture. Some facts are correct in this article, but the way they are connected is clearly the authors personal opinions. It is possible the word bondekultur merits an article as it is widely used, but bondekultur does not always refer to the same issues, it sometimes refer to handicraft traditions, farmers food customs, legal/social issues concerning farmers, nationalistic 19th century notions, and so on. What the word bondekultur encompasses depends on the context and this article is now a mixture of unsourced farmer related historical issues that do not connect to a lexical unity. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prattle} _{✉ post} 11:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To complicate it further, there were regional variations in mentality and character of farmers. I interpret the (original) romantic nationalist movement as a mainly Eastern Norwegian phenomenon. No More 18 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Amused Merge with Norwegian romantic nationalism -

As the originator of this contested article way back in the dark ages of Wikipedia, I've enjoyed the speculation on the motivation for the original article and would like thank you for the moments of humor.

Sadly, this was probably considered a reasonably sourced article when it was originated back in 2005 (unlike many articles back then it actually had references). It survived for 9 years with the marginal scholarship exhibited. The article has less merit than it should have - and is guilty of more closely approaching plagiarism than it would if written today - that you didn't identify the sources only means "Google translate" is not yet perfect. There is no doubt that if it survives, it requires work.

User:Dyveldi is correct - bondekultur is a topic with regional significance. As a measure of that, since I originally "set if free" the article has grown by a factor of 2.5X. For a non-topic, Norske bondekultur apparently has something of a regional following. The relative interest, as evidenced by editing and growth, might be used to argue for retention.

I am further amused that the Norwegian romantic nationalism article is cited as a covering the material. Although that article is arguably a logical place where this topic should be captured, that article currently misses the mark. Worse the article of Norwegian romantic nationalism has not one single reference (it also originated in the Wikipedia "dark ages").

I was yet further intrigued and amused by the standard of searching Google Books to understand the content of a book used as a reference. I normally use Google Books to identify books I need to buy or perhaps borrow via Interlibrary Loan - it is rare that sufficient content can be found on Google Books to reach a decision. Copyright protection gets in the way.

There are arguments against merger, of course - the material in this article far exceeds that in the Norwegian romantic nationalism article. That poses a challenge. The Wikipedia process has a unique skill for reducing valuable content while amplifying strange subtopics in main articles. As an example, I present the fjord article: note that the main topics under "Fjord features and variations" are "Coral reefs" and "Skerries." Nowhere in that section (or the broader article) can one find any of the information on fjord characteristics that is routinely found in most "paper encyclopedia" articles. There is a risk that pulling this article into "Norwegian romantic nationalism" will similarly distort it. But I'd suggest a merger is worth trying.

I rarely edit Wikipedia any more - that part of life that pays the bills demands my time - but if you decide to merge the articles I'll try to spend some time updating the material and smoothing out the various Norwegian contributions.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem I face with this AfD is that once there was an understanding in Norway that there was such a thing as a special Norwegian farm culture, unique for Norway. It was created in the political environment of the 19th century, where there was a political need to somehow show historical evidence that Norwegians were a separate nation, not just a province in Scandinavia. Simplified, historians and archaeologists created a near fictional story of the nation's history which was focused on underlining the differences to Swedes and Danes. So the dilemma arises: this article is a presentation of the farm culture seen from the eyes a hundred and fifty years ago. Today this would be regarded fiction and does not belong in an encyclopedia. What is interesting is the historiographical question: why was it seen as necessary to create this vision and how was it carried out? It was such a eloquent ruse that even today the inaccuracies it produced are being served to children. That is a notable topic, but it belongs in another article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:33, 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 Withdrawn, I wasn't aware they were on FR.wiki nor had I spotted the source so thanks Oakshade for both!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SodeTrav[edit]

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

Small non notable bus company, Fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Société départementale des transports du Var (it's French name) at the French Wikipedia page does indicate it's an old and major transport company in the Var, as well as some recent coverage [56].--Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 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.