< 10 December	12 December >

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is that the disambiguation page is functioning properly as per WP:2DABS relative to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Molina[edit]

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

This was "redone as dab" by @Carlossuarez46: but I have no idea why, as this dab page only has two entries on it... This is why hatnotes exist. The question is which should be the primary target--the Mexican actress. I can't page move it though and copy/pasting will destroy the page history. So someone should delete this and move the (actress) article to the main page with a hatnote at the top that reads ((for|the ''Breaking Bad'' character|Carmen Molina (Breaking Bad))). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were various links for the actress going to the redirect to Breaking Bad character, so I created the actress article and dabbed the redirect. Frankly, given the massive recentism of WP, I thought that leaving the dab between the two as neither popped as immensely the primary than the other - but let the community decide which (if either) is the primary use and hatdab the other (although the character is way down in some long article, so hatdab isn't really a hat...) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no problem with WP:2DABS, when no clear primary. No evidence has been put forward that actress is primary, and if she was, this would be WP:RM, Carmen Molina to Carmen Molina (disambiguation) and Carmen Molina (actress) to Carmen Molina. Then the dab could be looked at for possible deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there was redirect to a character list; a new article was created for an actress with the same name; the editor doing so carefully moved the incoming links to the character; all is well. Unless anyone has a strong argument to show which is the Primary Topic, this is how dab pages should work and there's no problem having a dab page with just 2 entries. (In other words, "Keep per Boleyn" - I hadn't spotted her comment while I was looking into it). PamD 18:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boelyn.--TMD Talk Page. 18:18, 14 December 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. Not sure we ought to bite our established editors either. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ignatius Church, Baltimore[edit]

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable church. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor's first article nominated for deletion with 30 minutes of creation, without even a word of welcome. Way to be bitey! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How could this historic landmark go up for AfD? It's not me calling this a "landmark", but the Baltimore Sun in a source that was in this article at time of Afd. [1] Not only was WP:BEFORE not adhered to, but the nom didn't even seem to look at the sources in the article at time of AfD which demonstrated passing WP:GNG. Other sources I found within 5 seconds. [2][3] The church also played a significant role in Baltimore's pre-Civil War African-American community. [4] Why was this nominated? --Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination was ignorant (calling it a "Promotional article about an unremarkable church") and was wp:BITEy, coming 30 minutes after a new contributors first edit. This kind of rude and ignorant reception is a big part of what is diminishing Wikipedia's scale of editing. The church seems pretty obviously notable from sources that are now in article. Even if the sources weren't there to start, it was wrong to start the AFD. wp:BEFORE was not performed. Better to contact an article creator and discuss sources, etc.; opening an AFD is pretty horrible for a new contributor. --do ncr am 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happily the article creator has responded positively at their Talk page to invitation to provide photos (at least in context of some expression of support by me referencing other support here), and has has provided four photos to the article, uploaded properly to commons. One is a detail of a fresco by Constantine Brumidi, whose frescoes decorate interior of U.S. Capitol dome. There was not previously a redirect from Constantine Brumidi to alternate spelling Constantino Brumidi, where there is an article, so connections are being made. There will definitely exist coverage of the major works in the church, perhaps offline sources, i am not bothering to look for more as I think the revised article is clear KEEP. --do ncr am 03:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep -- I am no expert on church architecture, but this looks as if it is architecturally significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 16 December 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 as WP:G11 (promotion) and WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the Big Picture: Business Acumen to Build Your Credibility, Career, and Company[edit]

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

Unremarkable book. Does not seem to fit under WP:A7 so I am putting it here. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Kolbasz (talk) 22:18, 11 December 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 mucous gland. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muciparous glands[edit]

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

Not much more than WP:DICDEF. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 4 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to mucous gland; apparently synonymous. I do not think that defining a class of glands is a mere "DICDEF". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into mucous gland, as sensibly suggested by Hasirpad. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hasirpad.--TMD Talk Page. 18:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. No prejudice of splitting again if good sources are found to claim them as separate and discuss extensively. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 00:50, 17 December 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 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wo sukuu kai[edit]

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

Appears to be a collection of case studies lumped together as an essay to prove the existence of "wo sukuu kai" - a term apparently created by the author. This therefore constitutes original research. DAJF (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a Japanese term, not created by the authorKyodaiteeter (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is a fragment of Japanese, which means roughly "Support group for...", and does not make a coherent topic for an encyclopaedia. If there is anything distinctive about Japanese support groups the title should be something like "Japanese support groups", and the article would need to explain why they are different. If you feel that 「～を救う会」 is an important Japanese term, you could contemplate adding it to en.wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:46, 9 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the fact that the title does not conform with modified Hepburn, I agree with Imaginatorium that the title is not justified by the article. Even as a term, "sukuu kai" is problematic because most searches of that term (for example, this at CiNii) come up with the group that is trying to save those kidnapped by North Korea. In addition, this article is just original research. It is true that there are a lot of these groups out there (here's one list), but the author him or herself cannot take that as a basis to create an article synthesizing these together--the definition of WP:OR. There has to be existing research that treats these as a single phenomenon, but I can't find those. The only option is to re-do this as an article on the problems of organ transplants in Japan--which is the reason these groups exist--but that means re-doing it from the start. Michitaro (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to O Gujariya: Badlein Chal Duniya. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Negi[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT. Harsh (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O Gujariya: Badlein Chal Duniya -Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I may also invoke WP:BLP1E here for subject being known for only one-event, and therefore doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article at this time. She has just replaced an actor in a TV soap opera and received passing mentions for. Well, they may later receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and justify a Wikipedia article. For now, make it a redirect to the TV show, she is known for and develop into an article on availability of sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:52, 4 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to location suggested by Anupmehra. Non-notable actress on a notable show. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:01, 11 December 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 00:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Wen[edit]

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

seemingly NN academic The Dissident Aggressor 20:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Plus, article started by sock. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 5 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent sources so it fails the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can find numerous published articles about Extenics, the theory he has developed. Most of them cite his work. There are also books and articles that he has published, or that he has edited. I can't find anything about him, however, nor the kind of material that would rise to notability as an academic. I think that if someone wishes to include Extenics in WP there may be enough sources to do so, and that would make more sense than having an article on Cai Wen. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 16 December 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 00:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Robinson (rugby league)[edit]

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

fails WP:RLN, which is already a rather generous notability guideline. To clarify, Canada is not a test playing nation and the Skolars do not play in the English Super League (or Championship). Mattlore (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources (coverage on official club and national team websites obviously doesn't count). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN. Sources provided consist of either trivial mentions of the player or routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--TMD Talk Page. 18:20, 14 December 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 07:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Indonesia Super League All-Star team[edit]

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

The team was only gathered for an exhibition match against Juventus F.C.. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one off squad for a friendly match. Inherently non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in the Maldives. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaluddin school[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of schools in the Maldives. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Maldives~~ List of schools in the Maldives per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The locality for this school is Malé, but List of schools in the Maldives sounds like a resonable redirect target. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell I really don't know how or even where you find these articles - It's not the first you've corrected me and probably won't be the last lol, Anyway thanks for finding a better redirect :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is mostly copied from the school's website, especially here. It may not qualify for a G12 speedy but I haven't found a completely clean version in the article's history. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in the Maldives per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 17 December 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 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azimuth, Delaware[edit]

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

Non-notable, probably non-existent place. This was dePRODded because the name appears in Google Maps, but no other confirmation can be found. Google Maps alone would not be enough to satisfy WP:NGEO, and it is becoming increasingly clear that Google Maps/Earth is not a reliable source, because it accepts and does not check user-generated material. This is one of a series of articles by KhnewKreator (talk) which, stretching the limits of AGF, just may be absolutely non-notable local neighbourhood names, but seem more likely to be hoaxes. For others, see WP:Articles for deletion/Midzemuthleiy, Delaware and WP:Articles for deletion/Maar, North Dakota. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other AfDs. Non-verifiable, likely hoax.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just like Midzemuthleiy, it fails WP:V. Insufficient evidence this place is real and no evidence it passes WP:NGEO. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 December 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 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Hama (ISIL)[edit]

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

non-notable, self-proclaimed admin division ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete one source is a blog, the other doesnt even mention the subject(belated signature) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete IF there is info out there worth talking about, it can be put in ISIL territorial claims where it belongs. These articles are just lending legitimacy to a terrorist groups claims of starting a government. Also if you take out the ISIL part and search the article name you only get this article referring to this topic = not notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 16 December 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 after Tokyogirl79 greatly improved the article and clarified the notability of the book. The article is short enough that it could be merged into the related article gender advertisement, but it's also fairly decent stand-alone. Certainly a "See also" entry would be beneficial in each article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Advertisements[edit]

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

Book report, possibly created as a school project. No evidence of notability provided — the sources cited appear to consist of blogs or images. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am finding some evidence of notability in book mentions like this one, and in academic journals like this one and this one. At the very least the author's study as a whole has been the focus of various papers like this one, although I'm listing that one because it kind of seems like parts of the article may have been paraphrased from this paper. Here are some other sources: ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) Basically it does look like the work is notable, although I would probably argue for an article about Goffman's study concepts as opposed to just the book itself. The book could probably pass notability guidelines but we'd likely end up making an article that would be about the study as a whole either way. However the issue here is that this article is pretty much one person's student paper and would require an almost complete re-write to make it fit the policies on NPOV and take out all of the original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I notice that there are two articles, one on the basic concept and one on the book. The book could conceivably merit its own article- I was able to find where Goffman's work on the subject (which always refers back to this book as the example of said work) is considered to be particularly noteworthy and groundbreaking. However at the same time, the two articles are largely the same as one another and I do note that the general article does suffer from some original research and tone issues- although this is due to other editors and may be the reason why the students in this case (they refer to themselves as such) thought that the previous article's state would be permissable on Wikipedia. I've left a note on the talk page and put a huge emphasis on them sending their teacher to the page for educators. I kind of can't help but feel bad for students in situations like this: they were pretty much let loose onto Wikipedia with what appears to be no overview of Wikipedia's editing policies(the sourcing shows fairly good proof of this) or the differences between papers and encyclopedia articles and they're the ones experiencing the sharp learning curve. In any case, I did find enough to where the book would pass notability guidelines, although this may be somewhat redundant to the general article. The only thing that I would say argues for the book to have its separate article is that it did influence other notable people and this section would not fit well into the general article as a whole. I will ask on the applicable WikiProjects for help fleshing out the page with proper sourcing and all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Abduvaliev[edit]

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

No indication of notability (certainly nothing supported by good sources) and no significant independent coverage. Merely heading a wrestling organization is not grounds for claiming notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He is one one of the richest businessmen in Uzbekistan and influential in the sports world. Wrestling is big in Central Asia. He also owns the country's dominant team in soccer, the most popular sport. From the viewpoint of Uzbekistan, seems to be a notable person. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Salim Abduvaliev is very influential in Uzbekistan. If you know russian or uzbek, just google his name and you will see. --Ochilov (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since secondary coverage does not have to be in English to make someone notable on English Wikipedia.--TMD Talk Page. 18:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has two references one of which is a wiki (same problem with referencing wikipedia) and the other is an online feature magazine. If the person is that notable there should be far more out there. Need more and better for WP:GNG to be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some references --Ochilov (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several references that refer to him as a Uzbek crime boss. There's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Mdtemp did you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I wasn't notified. --Ochilov (talk) 13:08, 19 December 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 07:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Inn Hotel and Convention Centre - Winnipeg[edit]

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

Advertisement, with no indication of the notability of this particular hotel. Prod removed. —Swpb^talk 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Graham (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references are commercial sites promoting the centre. Not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 16 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese water[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd as essay/original research with one supporting PROD and a second more stinging PROD. PROD was removed by author with no improvements. I agree with the sentiments. Non-coherent un-encyclopedic article. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get the impression that this is a machine-translated version of an article at the Japanese Wikipedia. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling essay filled with original research, and not really appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I'm sensing a pattern here with new articles created by the same enthusiastic editor, a large number of which have either already been deleted or are up for deletion, and I see that the editor has been briefly blocked once for repeatedly creating new articles without paying more attention to the basic Wikipedia guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I noted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University clubs in Japan. Mudslides in Japan is hanging on for now, but that's mostly because no one has bothered to put it up for deletion as suggested at User talk:Dekimasu#Mudslide in Japan. Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mish-mash of confused English practice. Since almost all the references are in Japanese, I followed one -- on the utterly unbelievable claim that Japan "imports" (?!) 60% of its water (whatever that could possibly mean). It turns out that the claim on the Japanese environment ministry's website is that Japan is only self-sufficient for 40% of its food in calorie terms, and thus the 60% of "virtual water" used to grow this food is "imported". So this bit is wrong, basically. I expect the rest is similar. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:50, 12 December 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 December 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is a very clear essay and should not be an encyclopedia article. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Hasirpad's suspicion and the two untranslated Related Pages wikilinks, I checked the respective What Links Here on jawp ja:特別:リンク元/自然農法 (Natural farming) and ja:特別:リンク元/有機農業 (Organic farming), giving close attention to 水 (water). Only ja:冬期湛水 (Winter waterlogging) and ja:炭酸水素ナトリウム (Sodium bicarbonate, Japanese calls hydrogen "water element") are found. It might be that jawp used to have such a counterpart but have been deleted.

Anyway delete Sourced parts might possibly be salvaged to their separate topics, but together at this state is a WP:TNT at best, and easily gone with WP:NOTESSAY per above. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my seconding of the proposed deletion is all I have to add. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 17 December 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: G5. Created by an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user User:Hayatgm. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurzain (Poetry)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Claims that this is the first book of Khowar poetry are not supported by reliable sources, and are refuted by the presence of the List of Khowar poets, which lists this book's author as merely the last in a list of poets in this language. The article is also shamelessly promotional and largely copied (although not verbatim) from its sole source: the Wordpress site set up to promote the book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam for non-notable genre. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per lack of notability. Obvious promotional article. Wikicology (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NB and WP:RS. Fai zan 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted because this article contains much information about the mentioned book, which is not available in any where.Ishtiaq Naqi

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

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

The result was procedural close. Merged to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 18. czar ⨹ 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANAPROF 1988[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Soft redirect, "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Fram (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On a totally technical note, soft redirects are supposed to be handled through WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 11 December 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. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Centralia blizzard[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. SkRThatOneDude (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm willing to consider local blizzards notable, but only if verified by coverage, and I can't locate coverage of this one.ShulMaven (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 15:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't seem to find any sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage.--TMD Talk Page. 18:21, 14 December 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. Mr.Z-man 21:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stav (mind-body-spirit system)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable created martial arts. No indication this has any significant impact. Certainly the claims of antiquity are exaggerated (see article's talk page).Peter Rehse (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows this is a notable martial art. It doesn't have a long verifiable history, it doesn't have many practitioners, and it lacks notable artists that practice the style. Reading the article's talk page makes it look even worse.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable minor martial art without significant coverage in secondary sources. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably passes WP:GNG with sufficient sources, might be better moved to a bio on Ivar Hafskjöld the creator. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage did you find in reliable sources? Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking this question? Are you saying that the sources below don't mention Ivar Hafskjold]? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crudelli, Chris (2008). The Way of the Warrior: Martial Arts and Fighting Styles from Around the World. DK ADULT. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-7566-3975-4.
Häggkvist, Carolina (April 19, 2005). "Stav - en livsstil" [Stav - a lifestyle]. Folkbladet (in Swedish). Retrieved February 17, 2010.
Nilsen, Thomas (December 7, 2001). "Stav - vikingenes "budosystem"" [Stav - The Vikings "System of Budo"]. Svart belte (in Norwegian). Retrieved February 17, 2010.[dead link]
Jacobsen Turner, David (April 17–24, 2008). "Vikingernes tai chi" [The Tai Chi of the Vikings]. Weekend avisen (in Danish). Retrieved February 17, 2010.

I was looking at two books in Odinsson and Rudgely which look self-publishedish but no worse than most newage materials. As I said I think I bio stub might be more appropriate. This certainly isn't notable as a martial art, and the martial art project tag should probably be replaced with WikiProject Neopaganism and cats adjusted. Removing it doesn't actually help discourage people being charged class fees. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the coverage appears to qualify as significant so GNG is not met. In addition, there isn't anything to show this is a significant martial art. It exists, but it's not notable. Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved - whether deleted or not, it isn't primary topic for "Stav", have temporarily moved to Stav (mind-body-spirit system) .. a regrettable dab, but evidently no reliable source to claim "martial art" and this is what the practictioners call it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving pages while an AFD is in progress is problematic for several reasons. Not least is that you force the closing admin to close it manually because the helper scripts will get confused. In this case they would actually delete the wrong page since you have now placed a dab page there. It is better to wait for the AFD to close and then do the move, if the article survives of course. SpinningSpark 19:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show this is a notable art or has any significant coverage. Claiming that self-published books are sufficient to show notability is not supported by an Wikipedia policies. Jakejr (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage. If considered as a martial art, it lacks documented evidence of meeting anything listed at WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mohey-ud-din (economist)[edit]

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

This appears to be a resume with no indication of notability. I'm amazed the article has been around for three years. ... discospinster _talk 13:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD#A7 as the article only asserts profession, not notability even without refs. And wow. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 11 December nom2014 (UTC)
delete as per nom. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously, no evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and seems like an attempt at self-promotion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Apparently created by a SPA, subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't merit a Wikipedia article and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a cheap advertisement to me. Fai zan 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a self bio - nothing in there that's actually asserting notability outside of the accomplishments bit Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it looks like non-notable self-promotion.--TMD Talk Page. 18:22, 14 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nijhum Rubina[edit]

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

Non working and unreliable sources which fail to prove subjects notability. Most of the sources are Mirror site and blog. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomen. Google results are social media, mirror sites, and passing mentions, though she has a lot of pictures.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, therefore delete.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and above. No reliable sources found (which would be expected if topic were notable ). Gaff (talk) 02:15, 16 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Bridge Left Bank railway station[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable Lakun.patra (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep precedent is that almost all railway stations that verfiably do or did exist are notable, given that sources about them are usually plentiful. In almost all other cases, station articles are merged and redirected to the article about the line or system that serves them. There is no problem with verifying the existence of this station, and other stations on the route all seem to have their own articles, so what this needs is improvement not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Mackensen (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Thyduulf. The community wisely decided years ago that all train stations are notable. This relieves editors of the burden of fleshing out the detailed notability of the tens of thousands of rail stations throughout the world when time and resources should be better spent creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.--Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 13 December 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 02:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hearne[edit]

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

Already deleted once for lack of substantive sourcing, the cited sources are not about the subject, they are either primary sources cited for claims about his books (it was in X list, source: X list) or are very obviously press releases originating with the subject's PR. No source has ever been cited which actually establishes the significance of the subject - this is, in effect, an unsourced BLP as there are no independently verifiable biographical details at all. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author meets the basic notability standard set out in WP:AUTHOR. The person has created ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. He's a Random House author with twelve books, and a Star Wars novel announced for March. Beyond the multiple sources listed in the article, his work has been reviewed multiple times in Publishers' Weekly, Library Journal and others. [10], [11] The nomination's claim that there are no independent sources simply isn't true. Reviews for books are what we use to determine if an author has been noted; they don't disqualify him for notability. That's silly. The previous deletion was based on an article that didn't have the present sourcing. I think it was also previous to him being sourced as a New York Times best selling author. The New York Times best seller list is something better than a generic "X list" for showing that an author is considered notable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clearly multiple reviews of his work. A simple Google search in News shows this [12]. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If there was such a thing as "Snow Keep" this is a candidate. No chance this author shouldn't be listed. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that says an author of multiple books is likely to be notable, is a pointer to writers about whom there should be reliable independent sources. No version of this article has ever cited any non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources, which is what our policy requires; this is a policy because without such sources we cannot ensure the neutrality of the article. It's especially important for living individuals. Not that I deny the subject may be notable, but I am out of patience with people who insist that something must have an article but cannot be arsed to source it properly. And no I do not mean you, I have great respect for you. My impatience is with editors who will do absolutely anything to have an article other than the one thing they actually need to do, which is to source it properly. Bah, humbug. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero reliable independent sources absolutely is a reason to delete an article and always has been. The original article was created by his PR, as far as I can tell, and this version is not much different. Feel free to add well sourced information though. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JzG and Gene93k: I agree it is annoying when Wikipedia is used for PR purposes (and this can be a big pointer to really check notability thoroughly) but, all told, unfortunately the motive for the article's creation is not a reason for deletion. Regarding sourcing/references, if the person or subject is notable and it is possible to find good references then the article should be kept. It doesn't matter that the actual article is poorly sourced or written. Wikipedia is a work in progress [13] and there is no deadline WP:NORUSH. I quote from the latter: "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Please also see "Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided" under WP:PNJCS. Please also see WP:DEL-REASON - only when you can't find sources is this a reason to delete. Not that there are poor/no sources in the article itself. When I do a search for "Kevin Hearne author" [14] there is more than enough to prove notability under WP:AUTHOR - Marksterdam (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Elaqueate's points. Best selling author, kind of a no-brainer, plenty to work with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article definitely needs some expanding, but it definitely meets WP:AUTHOR. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of hits. Granted the article can be refined and pruned, but 260,000 hits on Google hints that he's, at the very least, going to pass WP:GNG Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--TMD Talk Page. 18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This author definitely has a fan base, but counting Google "hits" is not a way to defend notability -- notability is a quality judgment, and no quantity of hits on blogs, fan sites, books signing announcements, etc., will add up to notability. After doing a search on Google you need to actually look at what you've retrieved and see if any of it amounts to reliable sources. I didn't see any. I can find PW reviews, a Library Journal review (short). I can find his books on the NYT bestseller lists, eBook, paperback. Adding these should help. But I don't find anything about him in particular. This is partly due to the fact that he is considered an author of teen fiction, which rarely gets serious attention. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 December 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as I disagree with the longstanding consensus, Times bestselling authors are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telenor Culture Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sources are Telenor itself, and this has always been the case. Authors seem to want a separate article not a redirect, but have consistently failed to provide reliable independent sources to substantiate its claimed independent notability. A year ago we closed as Keep. Not one independent source was added during that debate, and not one has been added since. At some point we have to actually apply policy: source it or lose it. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep Seems notable, with a reasonable amount of coverage of it, such as here, here, plus what is already in the article. JT_dale^Talk~ 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prestigious award, always mentioned in biographies of the recipients, and it was so easy to find news coverage of recent years (the last 3 were missing) that I'm sure there was also news coverage in earlier years that is no longer accessible to me on-line. Timbuktu was the first Swedish winner, so received particularly heavy coverage. A couple of the articles also sketch the history of the award. I've referenced many of the recipients and updated the material from Telenor itself, including the jury members and using their own English-language version of the page we were originally citing via Google translate. And I'll now add one of JTdale's two, as well. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a host of sources covering this award (see talk page). Seems to hit national Norwegian media every year. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:33, 11 December 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. Consensus that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Author can contact me if they'd like to do something else with the text. czar ⨹ 19:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Monkey Optimization[edit]

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

DePRODed by author without addressing the issues. Concern was: Research paper or academic assignment. Partial very close paraphrasing of the sources. Contravenes WP:OR. The article is also a massive synthesis of COPYVIO and/or very close paraphrasing of the multiple cited sources. Furthermore, the comments left here would seem to confirm the creator's misunderstanding in good faith about what is allowed on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I think it is better if we don't delete it but move it to Wikiversity. It is the right place for this sort of research paper. What you think Kudpung? About close paraphrasing: Kudpung which sources are used? I can see almost every source is offline, do you have access to those sources? If so, we can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Jim Carter 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't really have an opinion about moving it to another Foundation site. My main concern is that although it was probably pasted to Wikipedia in good faith, we are definitely not the venue for publishing original research or homework assignments. Add to that that the only real research the author did was to look for sources to use in his synthesis. If I were the prof assessing it I would expect more genuine research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Are you aware that original research is allowed on Wikiversity? This sort of stuffs are welcomed at Wikiversity. So, yes, we can't keep it here but we can keep it there. What you think? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, as I said above, I have absolutely no opinion about where else this article could be used. My single concern is that it does not belong on en.Wiki. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for a while. Yes, we can't keep it here per WP:NOTESSAY. So I support delete if not transwiki. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this is, indeed, an essay. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron terror[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Saffron Terror

Articles for deletion/Saffron terror

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

Clearly against WP:NEO , serious lack of secondary source for the term "saffron terror" , most of the references cited are from news and mostly "alleged". also the article uses general term of "alleged" without any consent to "alleged", and a mixture of linking the meaning of saffron in national flag to terrorist activites is a clear WP:SYN . Usage of many groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to WP:GEVAL. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same line as the total output (final meaning) is amounting to Synthesis Shrikanthv (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEO: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a ridiculous AfD that should be rejected without any consideration. The term "saffron terror" produces about 50,000 google hits [15] and "hindutva terror", which is a synonym, produces 26,000 [16]. The notability of the subject is not in doubt. There is a 300 page book on the subject, cited in the Bibliography of saffron terror and reviewed in an academic journal [17], and another book by Christophe Jaffrelot, a world-leading authority on Hindu nationalism, is being written as we speak: [18]. The nominator and his friends are engaged in a cover-up operation as far as I can see. Apparently, they do not want Hindu acts of terrorism brought to light. From the academic review of the book, we note: "For anyone who has not been following the news about Hindutva terrorist attacks, the sheer number and wide geographical distribution of these attacks is astonishing, and indicates, as the author suggests, a turn from communal pogroms to terror attacks as the favoured strategy for “the reactionary political project of building fascism”. It is apparent that at least in the 21st century, Hindutva terror has been far more active in India than Islamist terror." Wikipedia should not bend to fascism and terrorism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we wait for Christophe to complete his book? The other book is published by Pharos, check their website and catalogue; they have zero academic record and their specialization is 'Islamic Books' not history. The writer, Ghatade is an engineer by training and a political activist and amateur journalist; there are zero articles published in TOI or The Hindu (national dailies) by him. He is not a historian or academician. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would naturally expect an 'Islamic' publisher to publish books about terrorism that targets Muslims. That doesn't automatically make them "unreliable." Subhash Gatade has published in Economic and Political Weekly, a scholarly journal, on a wide range of topics: [19]. The cited book has been reviewed in the journal as well, as I mentioned previously. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Jaffrelot has written in his life is about anti Hindu nationalism including while during his studies. So I would not count him as WP:NPOV although he may be a WP:RS. Same for Ghatade who is not even a WP:RS. But regardless, when you are defining a certain term, mere WP:RS is not enough, you would need WP:NPOV. Additionally WP:WINAD. Majority of scholars define these acts as riots and not terrorism. Riots are riots, terrorism is terrorism. As far as fascism is concerned, it requires an Authoritarian system - one that is certainly not being supported by the said groups. Common Law (supported by these groups), religious liberty (supported by these groups) is not a sign of fascism. Of course, by having common law for every citizen in the country is somehow fascism, I am afraid that most western coutries including US and Euro countries are the same.--Sdmarathe (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly nonsense. Academic freedom means that scholars are free to study whatever subjects interest them. A cursory look at the Christophe Jaffrelot page indicates that his interests are wider than Hindu nationalism. He has also written about Pakistan politics and caste-based politics. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep your emotions at check , divide the article from your emotional attachments to it, as User:AmritasyaPutra puts it there is only statment of the word in all the newspaper article and has very few or nil secoundary sources describing or critically analysing it. currently the article is stitched up to as to give weight to the word WP:NOTNEO or make it famous. again note that the books stated by you "Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India by Subhash Gatade " itself looks like a stitched work of many historical events, note that the book is released on 2011. when Gandhi was killed nowhere was it called hindu terror during the period of the event, if some author calls it hindu terror after 60 years of the event in one of his book and not even notable enough will not give due weight to in wikipedia. and doubt on its notability except for use in wikipedia reference. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "emotions" are exactly what brought you here. In this edit [20], you said that a key sentence in the lead "demeans organisations." In this comment on the talk page [21], you said that the lead suggests that "individuals with hindu religion belief" are being accused. So, you want your favourite organisations to look good and you want hindu religion to look good. You want this article gone so that you can continue your denial. So, this is a politically motivated AfD. It is not done in the best interests of Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you were warned on your talk page about personal attacks by another editor for mindless accusations here. Be civil and discuss content, take your complaints to ANI if you mean it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wikipedia:GOSSIP, we should not promote any kind of political propaganda. The "alleged" speculations have no weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the guideline that AP linked so conveniently, the term needs to be discussed, and not just used, by multiple reliable secondary sources. Here they are;
- Gittinger, Juli (10 September 2011). "Saffron Terror: Splinter or Symptom?". Economic and Political Weekly. 46 (37).
- Swami, Praveen (2002). "Saffron Terror". Frontline. 19 (6).

Both of these are in widespread use as RS across the 'pedia. More can be provided if necessary; but last I checked, two sources satisfied the criteria for "multiple." This meets GNG very comfortably. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note both the sources (above mentioned) are amounting to WP:OPINION and are from magazine and a newpaper also themselves refering to newsarticle which are again opinions of others Shrikanthv (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense; EPW is an excellent academic journal, and Frontline is non-academic but certainly has rigourous editorial oversight. What part of "reliable and secondary" do they not satisfy? Besides, you seem to be equating "research" with "opinion," which is ridiculous. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not questioned the degree of excellence of EPW journal , the "research" in the general is on the "opinons" of the people and am not equating a research to a opinion Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accurately and neutrally describing the term is not promoting political propaganda. The term has been described in newspapers and books. [22], [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN you are probably correct, what you think about the circumstances that have lead this AFD? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladesmulti: I opened a new section here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is probably the case. It needs improvement but not in the way of here-is-saffron-terror(ists)-list-according-to-wiki-editors. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN pecular mention in [24] from 350 odd pages it is mentioned ones and that too the book is still a new print and [25] the book just only uses the word without any description ones! out of again 350 odd pages, I do not believe this can be used to make the word ready for a dictonary Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ready for a dictionary" is not part of WP:NEO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word dictionary was used in indirect meaning suggesting it (saffron terror) has very little mention in the sources qouted and nothing to do with dictionary use Shrikanthv (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is used by mainstream newspaper and publications. There are sufficient number of citations in the article to support that. And the term has been, it seems, in use at least since 2002. Kautilya3 has discussed the notability in detail in his keep voting above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one is questioning the notability here (at leat not me), this AFD should discuss the issues like WP:NOTDIC -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO: This is clearly created for its shock value and does not contribute much academically as it appears to be just a collection of references from other pages and few reliable sources. Some in list have actually been referred by international experts to opposite conclusions than mentioned in the article. This article hence appears nothing more than a list of alleged acts and not really a legitimate article. The term itself has been coined by Chidambaram and Sharad Pawar as a political ploy to defame Hindu nationalism and Hindutva political parties. Voting for Deletion of this article as this seems to only promote the creation of Congress party's appeasement politics for political gains --Sdmarathe (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been cavnassed. [26]Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck No. I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages. Do you not even care to look at talk page? Should I level the same charge when you and AsceticRose came out of nowhere when I was being edit warred by vanamonde? Please stop making such baseless accusations.--Sdmarathe (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the nominator has canvassed you is a fact. If you would have come here of your own accord, you may simply say so. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. despite reading the comments and links to talk page edits, you do not want to believe. So apparently simply saying so was not enough. --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I think Sdmarathe's "I have commented and have followed this page when I was reading other related pages" is clear. Shrikanthv, if you're going to notify individual editors, be prepared to provide a reason as to why you notified those editors and not others. Further allegations of canvassing should be made at WP:ANI if need be as little will be done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not. He's just notified since he was heavily involved with this ~~page~~. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to show us where he was involved? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused with a number of other political party and pages where terrorism was a subject. Although he has still edited a few related pages like Shiv Sena, Naroda Patiya massacre and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sdmarathe had commented on the article talk page discussion related to this AfD before Shrikanthv posted a neutral one line for participation on his talk page and India Notice board. By your standard, this edit is also canvassing, no? But why look there because he is in your support? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush has deliberately stayed away from this AfD. To drag him in here is in bad taste. Do you realize you are being too noisy in here? Why don't you relax and let people do their thinking? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pot? --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -BECAUSE subject simply meets the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. We have talk pages to discuss contents of the article. WP:AFD is only meant to discuss the inclusion and exclusion of a particular subject, That's it. Get your arguments straight! (see also, comment above left by User:NeilN) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons given above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I'm seeing the nom's logic here. The topic is valid and should be included in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Unaffiliated editor. The title 'Saffron terrorism' fails the Neo requirements (until a secondary source spends a page on a neologism then it isn't notable--no secondary source does, so...). But 'Hindu Terrorism' is certainly a notable topic. The Matusitz book (that is the most substantive secondary source for 'Saffron Terrorism') uses that as the section heading and there are thousands of secondary sources on that particular substantiation. I think the good faith opinions on both sides can meet in the middle for the article being titled 'Hindu Terrorism' (which already redirects here) which is certainly notable and less problematic than 'Saffron Terrorism'. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at least in the short term per AbstractIllusions above. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see any articles about the topic in scholarly sources. There are not even sources that say something like "it is a term used by x to describe y", All we have are scattered references to use of the term and we do not know if all the speakers are referring to the same thing. And do not rename or save as a re-direct. TFD (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term saffron terror had only been started by congress in early 2000s for political gains and latched on by biased sources. What has been labeled the so called terror groups are only labeled for political and religious gains. No reliable scholarly source that is WP:NPOV had used the terrorist adjective to the groups. They have however used The term right wing Hindu nationalist that include fringe rogue elements. Such elements exist in all Right or Left wing groups or parties in India (case in point Akbar Owaisi in AIMIM - who has incited crowds by defaming Hindu Gods and threatened repeatedly against the entire country). This article at its very least should mention that it's an allegedly political term and elaborate on that if so desired. this should not be a laundry list of alleged attacks some of which are not even referred to as terrorist acts and some are known linked to other groups. It only adds to sensationalizing the term --Sdmarathe (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows that the term "saffron terror" comes from journalistic sources. Neither of the cited articles mention any political origins for the term. If you want to claim that the term was political, you need to substantiate it by providing political sources that predate the journalistic sources. Do you have any? Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved one of the comment to talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason as to why this page must be deleted. I do not think that it should even be renamed because firstly, Saffron is a colour, it is neither an ideology, nor a religion. It is a colour which happened to have a religious or ideological significance. Saffron terror was merely chosen for its non-religious nature and to identify an alleged terror oraganisation and activities of some saffron clad people. They may or may not be Hindu, they may or may not be Hindutva ideologues. They might as well be Buddhists. I would really want it to be renamed as Hindu terrorism, but keeping in mind the sensitivity, required neutral viewpoint of this issue and the widespread use and familiarity of the word, the word Saffron should stay.

Hindus do not have a monopoly of the term Saffron, Hindu, Hindutva just like the way Muslims do not have the monopoly over the term Jihad and Islam. It can be used in anyway one feels like for they are just words. The media used the phrase Saffron terror, they chose the word Saffron terror and hence we call it Saffron terror, same is with Islamic terrorism, no malice intended, no intentional hurting of feeling, it is just plain hard facts. In short, either put up or shut up. Whether the word in itself is meaningless or not is another issue worth discussing and can be added as criticisms to the Criticism section of the article.

This article has the potential to be better through addition and citation of more reliable sources, proper editing and adding of pictures. This article can certainly not be made better through deletion.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Thinkmaths (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment You perhaps mention the exact problem with the article as you find "saffron" not a monopoly with Hinduism, which i have noted in the nomination is leading to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation and the information you stated that "some media" used this word "saffron terror" is also right as stated by me in nomination this is leading to WP:NOTNEO neologism does not give right to the word "saffron terrorism " be made famous as it lacks secondary sources, I do not understand eventhough your analysis is correct you are putting this under keep ? . and this article has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism nor Hinduism vs Islam, please keep the topic away from the article as I do also see that your are mentioning that "we call it ...." .who are the we ? Shrikanthv (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply @Shrikanthv: We are not a panel to decide about the consequences of a given information. We are archivists, we archive any information about a particular word of phenomena which exists, allegedly or in reality. There are wikipedia articles about conspiracy theories, doesn't those conspiracy theories lead "to synthesis and leaves a large open field for misinterpretation" according to you, but they are still there because the existence of that theory is a fact, whether the theory is real or not forms the content of the article. The existence of this word in itself is a fact and this article describes the usage, relevance and history of this term, whether the word as a phenomena is real or not forms the content of this article. The phrase Saffron terror is not a neologism because the phrase is being used for more than 12 years now and is quite a popular word. I would like to divert this discussion to the talk page so, ping me in the talk page if you wish to continue.Thinkmaths (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or rename to "Hindu terrorism", since this is a real and important phenomenon, and both terms are used by scholarly sources (links provided above by others, but a cursory look at google books or google scholar will demonstrate as much). -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with religion, the acts are not driven by religious zeal but allegedly driven by ideological zeal. -sarvajna (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like TFD has said on talk(page) of this AFD, if there is any terror, then why it hasn't been added to Terrorism in India? There is no mention of this new term. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, that argument is totally irrelevant, and you know it. If the Terrorism in India page doesn't have it, then put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:@Bladesmulti:No problem, I have added it now.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We add only convictions not just a few allegations. Thinkmath's recent change on Terrorism in India is probably enough for recognizing any Saffron terror, a whole page is undue weight. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladesmulti: Ha! What a turncoat! Then by the same token why should Islamic terrorism stay, all the terror event mentioned are enough for Islamic terrorism. The content of Saffron terror deals with this in detail by explaining the origin, the usage and its familiarity in the public.Thinkmaths (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction is not same as the small list few allegations. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladesmulti: What about the list of terrorists that was released by the Home Ministry after Shinde's Saffron terror remark, now they were not allegations, were they? How else then the Home Ministry can reveal their names. They were either convicted or absconding. Now you would say, the list had too few names.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have the report? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is not about who created this term? Even if Congress party had created this phrase, it is hardly a reason for the deletion of this article. However I can make one observation from the article, the phrase was widely used during the regime of one political party. None of the events mentioned in the article have reached their conclusion, the whole article seems to be some list of allegations and there is no detailed explanation in place on wikipedia even after so many years after the article creation. It can be because the editors did not work on the article or because there is nothing much to cover. A lot of editors here are confused between terrorism, communal violence and single handed assassinations. This phrase is a Neo, as mentioned at WP:NEO An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. This is what is being done in many of the arguments above, with the number of hits and other things. A few others seems to be suggesting synonyms for the phrase and want to liberally use other sources which constitutes OR and other editors who are trying to link it with "Hindu Terrorism" or a religious motivated terrorism should try to understand the subject, it very much gives an impression that there is a serious lack of competence. -sarvajna (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the terror incidents by Saffron terrorists are less now, this article cannot be deleted. All the incidents mentioned in the article and few other incidents (a simple Google search will help) are a clear outcome of Saffron Terrorism. Multiple attempts haave been made to delete this article. But it has survived. Go through the Talk page and see why earlier attempts to delete this article were not successful. Those reasons are still applicable. I am not sure why this article is being targetted so many times for deletion. I suggest the afd tag be removed from this article and more details are added to this page like any other Terror page. Wasif (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously only one attempt was made to delete this article, the result was "no consensus". I think you did not even cared to do your homework before making this comment. Google search will not help, get the source. -sarvajna (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - To me this appears to satisfy WP:NEO via WP:GNG given the available sources. That's not to say the article as it is should stay as it is, of course -- just that I don't think deletion is the way to solve problems with the article. That said, I feel like I may misunderstand some of the delete arguments. The most convincing non-keep arguments to me would be (a) that once the page is brought up to NPOV/RS standards it will have insufficient content beyond a dictionary definition, or (b) that there is an obvious target for merge and redirect. I see some comments that have touched on each of these, but I hope someone can either summarize one or both of these positions or otherwise point me to where I may be overlooking or misreading. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Very less portion of the article actually deal with the term "saffron terror". I roughly checked all the links before the allegation section and less than half of the sources uses the term "saffron terror". Even most of those sources don't discuss the term, rather they discuss the phenomena, which makes this neologism unnotable. The phenomena is rather more notable, but a page move will be required to a better title. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vigyani, I'm not sure I understand you, because it seems like you are arguing for a rename, but you're voting delete. Yes, the sources in that article need cleaning up, but there are enough sources that discuss the term to meet GNG for the article itself. Even if that were not true, you agree that most of the sources do discuss the phenomenon, which suggests that there is enough material for an article on the subject, whether with this name or a different one. So it seems like your argument is suggesting rename. Or am I reading you wrong? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify: I vote Delete for an article about the term "Saffron terror". But I am probably neutral if the article is renamed and the new article make it clear that it is about concept not the term. The alleged/non-alleged concept of saffron/hindutava terror has been discussed in enough in media and maybe notable. Although, I do not believe that any such terror exist.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasoning above, but rename to Hindu extremism or something on the lines of <insert religion here> radicalism. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is notable, sourced, and a widely used term deserving of its own entry. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed above why just a passing reference is not enough, providing source for statements like "sourced, and a widely used term" will help here. -sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing your POV onto my comment does not change my vote. The sources are more than adequate. Strong Keep ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying mentions are really not enough for proving notability. There are thousands of terms that are more popular and more notable than this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 50,000 Google hits, including an article in the Times of India this year [27] and 23 articles in The Indian Express say otherwise. It is far more than a "flying mention." ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned above, your personal research of google search doesn't matter, it would only matter when those hits have explained the phenomenon in detail, also I did not mention that you are pushing your POV, commenting that I am pushing my POV doesn't really help here. You comment shows the depth of your research on the subject -sarvajna (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is clearly at issue here, and this is notable. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. Someone is apparently offended that this article exists, and wants to see it disappear. I am disconnected from this culturally, nationally, and religiously. The POV that I am pushing is that this belongs, per Wikipedia guidelines. My vote remains at Strong Keep - regardless of how many times individuals with a personal bias try to discount the value of my vote. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have failed to substantiate your claims with any source I rest my case with the admin who will take the decision, I have no intention of changing your vote since all of us know that this is not a democracy where number of vote counts. Your bold lettered keep doesn't make much difference. Also keep up with your personal comments, you would be soon finding yourself at ANI or some other place. However it is amazing to know that someone who is fairly new to wikipedia makes such a good comment -sarvajna (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did provide a source, but here are two others - which specifically deal with the "the phenomenon in detail" as you have requested. "Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior" By Jonathan Matusitz. Chapter 8 is dedicated to this phenomenon. Also, "Arguing Counterterrorism: New Perspectives" edited by Daniela Pisoiu pp. 192-3. These two sources "cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept" as requested by other editors. This should be more than enough to satisfy that requirement. Whether I am a new editor at Wikipedia is immaterial. I am not new at life, research, debate, or human interaction. The request for deletion of this subject is unwarranted, as are threats of taking me to ANI.ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are not talking about how many times the WP:NEO word apeared in your google search, nor are we looking to create a new word in dictionary by making it famous, please refer to previous comments the books and sourced mentioned by you is already been discussed, nobody is thereatning you nor condemning your point of view, if you do not see the reason, you would not like to read the reason why it has been nominated thats your take Shrikanthv (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIron's comments are quite justifiable. Reliable sources have been provided that not only use the term, but also discuss the term, as WP:NEO requires. I provided two such; Kautilya provided a couple; ScrapIron produced some; Neil produced some. Those of you voting "delete" have not provided a convincing rebuttal to any of these. When I confronted you with the EPW source, your only problem was that it was a "magazine," followed by something quite incoherent and off topic. You've produced something similar here. The sources are reliable, and they discuss the topic in question; there really isn't anything more to be said. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided by ScrapIron has already been discussed here, I don't think there is a need for the same rebuttal every time. -sarvajna (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again off the mark. My point was that GNG requires two sources, by and large; several more than that have been provided. Therefore, you need to demostrate that all but one are not up to the mark before your votes can be taken seriously. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Off the mark" ? Great argument, it has been said several time during the discussion that you will be able to find not just 2 but event 200 sources where this phrase is mentioned. This is not really helpful unless those resources explain the phenomenon deal with the subject directly. As explained by TFD (in the diff provided) this source fails to deal with the subject properly. You have failed to explain why the source are helpful. All you are able to do is a google search and provide the number of hits of sources which has the phrase. This is not really helpful. -sarvajna (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NONE of them are proved. It is widely believed that this is a part of a structured campaign to tarnish political rivals. None believe these conspiracy theories(Yes, I did called them) other than leftists(who dominate "intellectual" space in India(This explains notability)) who anyway lost grip on reality. According to rule of law, unless one is proved guilty, one should be considered as innocent and more importantly should not be used as political tools. You simply cannot add an article on wikipedia based on some wild allegations especially when it defames a community. तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 14:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

discussion moved to user talk as irrelevant to this page.Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Kill Stephen King[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Prod removed by IP, no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there appears to be coverage from DreadCentral and ShockTillYouDrop. While IMDb lists reviews from mostly unreliable sources, DVD Talk seems acceptable. It also lists that there was a Fangoria review, but I can't find anything online. Sun Journal has a paywall article about the film with a cached version here. There's also this, this, and this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I meant to post here earlier but kinda lost track. In any case, while the coverage is fairly light for this film it has gotten just enough to where I believe it squeaks by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Drábek[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:DIRECTOR. Results on Google are social media/affiliated sources. Only cited source in article is from the Czech Wikipedia, which of course, is unreliable.

1. No evidence of multiple notable roles, a cult following, or unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (WP:ENT)

2. No evidence of regard as an important figure or wide acceptance by peers or successors, nor is there evidence of him creating a notable new concept, theory, or technique. He has played no major role in a well-known work covered independently, none of his works have won significant critical reception. (WP:DIRECTOR) Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable personality in the context of the Czech theatre, has won awards such as Alfréd Radok Award, which is a very important recognition. I'm trying to improve the article but I'm busy at the moment so my work here is slow and irregular. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:DIRECTOR 4c) "The person's work (or works) either…has won significant critical attention" through his multiple awards, now mentioned in the article and supported by a reliable source. C 679 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Won major awards, source exists for verification. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:14, 15 December 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. Soft delete, minding low participation. A redirect could potentially be warranted if secondary sourcing on the connection is added to the LN article. czar ⨹ 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law PreDiscovery[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence to support notability; Google searches only return press releases and company sales pages. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — The creator of this article, Elephant 16, proposed merging this article with LexisNexis (the creator of the tool described in the article) a week ago on the talk page for the nominated article. Why is this even at AfD? —mako ๛ 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing in the article worth merging, not a single reliable third-party source that mentions the product. I haven't found any sources beyond a passing mention of less than one sentence and a few rather dubious blogs. That's not enough to establish the software's notability; nor is it enough to merge any of the current content elsewhere. Huon (talk) 00:45, 27 November 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 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:17, 11 December 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. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stern (director)[edit]

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

Article has been around for 8 years without a single reference. I have looked but I can't find anything. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep: When I first saw that the article had no sources, I thought it might be a candidate for WP:BLPPROD. However, the article was created prior to March 19, 2010, so I added a ((BLP unsourced)) instead and proceeded to see what I could find. So far, I have found these LA Times articles: TV Review: Hey, What's Wrong With a Little Idiotic Stealing Among Friends?, Chimp Man Canned and Feeling a Bit Cheetahed: Security breach?...Steaking a claim...Stern reply...Thumper cars., and Movie Review: 'Freaked': Potty-Level Humor Mixed With Terrific Effects. The LA Times should be reliable enough for citing some stuff about Stern's career, but I am not sure if the mentions are significant enough to establish Stern's overall notability per WP:DIRECTOR. I also found these sites, but they appear to be primary/self-published sources so they might not have much value: Tom Stern Writer/Director and About Tom Stern. There is this one for the movie Freaked: Freaked (1993), but once again it only mentions Stern thrice, although one menion clearly refers to him as one of the directors of the film. There is also this 2005 DVD review and this 1993 article called "Hip Shooters" (pages 30 to 41) from Film Threat with Stern pictured on the cover with Alex Winter. Is having directed Freaked enough to satisfy per #3 of "WP:DIRECTOR"? If it is, then I think the article should remain, be marked with a ((BLP sources)) template and inline citations added wherever possible.- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC) -- Addendum: I've changed my original post from "Comment" to "Keep". I was able to find more sources, in addition to those mentioned above, so the article now has gone from zero to eleven sources and from zero to fifteen inline citations. I also believe that Stern's involvement with Freaked combined with his other TV and film work satisfies "WP:DIRECTOR". Although there is still lots of ways the article can be further improved and there's still the potential problem of COI editing, I feel its current version is much improved over the version that was nominated for deletion and least with regards to reliable sources, so per "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" of WP:BEFORE, I don't feel the article should be deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more reviews of Freaked linked to from it's article too, from Entertainment Weekly, Variety, and Time Out. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:49, 26 November 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 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Screenwriter for multipole notable films is sufficient for ntoability. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maar, North Dakota[edit]

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

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

These two placenames were also added to OpenStreetMap by a single account around the time their articles were created, and they appear on Google Maps. The account that added them to OSM also added a number of fabricated locations elsewhere (e.g., Midzemuthleiy, Delaware, and I suspect these two are also a hoax and that their appearance on Google Maps is due to a user-submitted "correction". I can find no trace of them in Google Books nor the US Geographic Name Information System. The labeled lakes nearby in Google Maps do not have a name on USGS topo maps; the names were probably also faked by user submission. Furthermore, both calderas and maars are water-filled volcanic features; this region of the continent is a glaciated plain covered with till, which would preserve no such volcanic features. Choess (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Discussion at the improbably-named Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midzemuthleiy, Delaware is showing that was made up, so its quite likely all of these all made-up. We don't require much for a populated place, but google maps and nothing else is highly unusual.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No confirmation found: not in Geonames, not in Bing Maps, not in the big Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, which in that region shows places as small as Fortuna, pop. 22. Google Maps alone is not enough for WP:NGEO even if it were trustworthy, and it is becoming clear that Google Maps/Earth is not an RS - effectively a wiki, and vulnerable to hoaxers like this one because they have a less effective Recent Changes Patrol than we have. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not verifiable by checking reliable sources. As JohnCD points out, Google Maps in not a reliable enough source to prove notability. As with Midzemuthleiy and Azimuth, Delaware, no evidence of passing WP:NGEO. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 December 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. While on the surface this would appear to qualify for a keep result, several of the keep !voters have not provided guideline- or policy-based rationales for the article's retention, stating sentiments such as "keep for now" and "wait and see", among others. Due to AfD discussion closures being based upon the merits of arguments relative to policies and guidelines, closing as no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 West Coast storm[edit]

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

The only sources I can find about this are WP:ROUTINE. This storm may turn out to be something major, worth including, but for now it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. reddogsix (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reddogsix: the storm has now happened. Care to review your comment? ansh666 03:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As AfD debates last for a week, it will be clear by then whether or not this particular storm is notable or routine. It would have been best, in my opinion, to have waited a few days to create this article. But now we have the article, and opinions about its notability will be much more relevant in two to three days than they are now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Cullen, somebody should slap a current event tag on this thing, and in the next few days we may know a lot more about whether this is truly an encyclopedic topic. Placing this AfD and article on my watchlist... Roberticus talk 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~for now~~ By the time this AfD closes we will know for sure if the storm is notable or not. Seeing how powerful the storm is and that schools have been closed in a major city before it even hits in my opinion is a bit notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion to keep, over the course of time the storm has gained notability through in depth coverage and it's effects one of them being some (but still not enough) relief of the drought. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of this pointless article. Why does this warrant its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.204.13 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say it's notable and encyclopedic. T3h 1337 b0y 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but we also have to keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, how is this storm going to differ from a run of the mill storm that happens everyday on earth someplace where people live? - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Keep This may be a bit off-topic from the reason for deletion you guys are discussing, but frankly there's no harm in having an article on wikipedia, as long as it's well-phrased and encyclopedic. I'd say any storm that has schools closed should be included on wikipedia, especially in California, where currently storms of this degree are fairly rare. Plus, some day people are going to be going through wikipedia, and find this page in the future. A typical problem with historical documents is that people ignore things that don't seem important at the time, and leave them out, and years later somebody wants to know about it but the object lacks information, because nobody bothered recording it. This is the exact reason Wikipedia is here, so we will have a gigantic archive of information for whatever one's mind can take in. Of course, if one were to take this to extremes, for instance making an article about a blade of grass growing in a crack in Central Park, New York, then we would suffer a sort of information overload. However I believe a storm of such a degree is of course useful in Wikipedia, and I vote to keep it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A typical problem with historical documents is that people ignore things that don't seem important at the time, and leave them out, and years later somebody wants to know about it but the object lacks information, because nobody bothered recording it. This is the exact reason Wikipedia is here, so we will have a gigantic archive of information for whatever one's mind can take in." That's actually precisely what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia documents things that are notable. If there are sources that show this storm is notable per WP:GNG then it should stay. Otherwise, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" I'd say any storm that has schools closed should be included on wikipedia" Schools in most snowy climates close up to once per week during the winter. Lousy argument. 24.185.200.55 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article to 2014 West Coast storm. Concise or unclear, there is no other notable storm of the same year in the West Coast. --George Ho (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, West Coast is not clear. There are tons of West Coat's throughout the world. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No reports of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and wait and see what it does. So far, I'm impressed with the storm, but too soon IMO to make a final say. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see - It's been moved again, to December 2014 North American winter storm, which is just as ambiguous. Can someone who's in a more appropriate time zone check for any more double redirects? The wind and rain smashing against the window mere inches from my head kinda woke me up... In any case, I don't think there's been enough widespread coverage to date, but by the time this AfD is supposed to end (or be relisted) it should be slightly more clear. One aspect to consider in the coming days is the social media stuff ([28], for example, though that's not near a WP:RS), but I don't think that it meets WP:NEVENT right now. ansh666 11:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to change my !vote to keep for now. ansh666 03:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - This is a relatively new article; give it some time. There's a lot of information out there, and we just need some more editors and time. If we kept deleting every article that looked too disorganized or "un-notable", we would never get anywhere with the article writing. By the way, I'm sick of how people kept nominating article (and templates) after article for deletion this year? Why don't we just take a break, and actually give these articles enough time to be fully developed before spouting off some more deletion nonsense? LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is not on a currently notable subject. This is certainly not "deletion nonsense". I dislike those non-content creators who make it their primary goal to promote deletionism, but a longer amount of time should have been waited before trying to create this article in my honest opinion. I will not say a permanent "keep" !vote, as there is no way of certifying that the storm will eventually become notable, but I would not greatly disagree with a "keep for a few more days" to see how significant the storm ends up actually being. More consideration is necessary. Dustin (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads me to another thing: Define "notable". Is this an average storm? No. Is this historic? There's a chance it becomes somewhat historic (in the sense that it becomes one of more eventful storms in the W US in late 8-10 years), but IMO it's not at that level yet. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ended up making a tornado. The storm as a whole saw a ton of coverage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note First, I think there was a tornado in Oklahoma at one point and a Tornado Warning in Kansas which may or may not have been related, and in any case, a few EF0 tornadoes do not necessarily establish notability. Dustin (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:GNG. --DarTar (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I would like to remind everyone that simply having a lot of coverage does not necessarily confer notability, it needs to be shown that it's not simply routine coverage. It goes without saying that a major storm in a drought-afflicted area will garner significant coverage (in the general sense, not WP:SIGCOV), but it may still not meet our standards. Of course, this was bigger than your typical major California storm, but simply assuming because of all of these reasons that it is or is not notable (and/or simply stating that it is or is not notable, as with any AfD) isn't enough. ansh666 08:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the coverage out there is marginal or merely routine. Documentation of a tornado is rather unusual in California. Also, it's a bad thing to apply to weather events. Tropical cyclones often get articles, sometimes even without affecting land, due to the same kind of coverage as with this storm. Certainly some of the impacts weren't anticipated; the debris flow and tornado generated articles that wouldn't have otherwise existed. Plus, that section mainly pertains to insignificant coverage that is not much more than passing mention or an aggregation of other insignificant coverage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And earlier this year, there were like five in a week. California tornadoes, while uncommon, are not nearly as unusual as you seem to think. Dustin (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, tornadoes in Cali's coastal cities are quite rare, and this one was right smack in the middle of South LA. For all the years I've lived in the state (>20), I can't remember a single other one. ansh666 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. California tornadoes (especially those occurring in metropolitan areas) are extremely rare, especially when compared to the average occurrence of tornadoes in the rest of the US. There was one EF-0 tornado in San Diego County in late January 2010, and I had never heard of anything like it before. Sure, California may get an average of 5 tornadoes each year (as stated by a meteorologist), but that doesn't mean that such events are common. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This is a very recent event, and it may or may not have lasting impact. If it does end up having lasting impact and we delete it, then we'll have to do a bunch of pointless work to recreate what we already have. I say leave it up for a bit and then renominate it in the future. It's decently written and informative, so leaving it up until its lasting impact is more apparent will not do Wikipedia any harm. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 18 December 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, repeatedly recreated hoax article (first few incarnations as Final Realm III), previous creator blocked (for the creation of this and other hoaxes), current creator blocked for block evasion, page salted. Fram (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final Realm 3[edit]

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

Possibly WP:TOOSOON. No articles on the first two installations of this game, no references/citation for this one. Online can only find two youtube videos (unreliable poster) on a cursory search. Original article was a cut/paste from a featured article (tag have since been removed). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:50, 11 December 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. Michig (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eye movement in scene viewing[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I no longer think this is a personal essay. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

essay-like qualities have been removed, please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve this article without resulting in deletion CDMcKee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a personal essay and this very specific topic fails WP:GNG. No amount of editing is going to rescue this. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me why this is still a personal essay, so I don't make another mistake? I am trying to report information without any ulterior motives other than to provide impartial knowledge. Also, can it be said that this is too specific in comparison to other similar pages such as Eye movement in reading and Eye movement in music reading? CDMcKee (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over what I have written and agree that it is too complicated and technical for users to understand (if that was what you were meaning), so in any subsequent work I'll make sure it is easier to read. Thanks for your input CDMcKee (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is based upon WP:NOTESSAY. That advises us to avoid, "personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)". But the page in question is not a personal essay of this sort as the author and his personal views are largely invisible and the statements made are well supported by reasonably expert sources. As an example of such sources, see Eye Movement Control During Scene Viewing which amply demonstrates the notability of the topic. There's not much needed here except some ordinary editing but AFD is not cleanup. We should also thank the author for his contribution and apologise for this vexatious process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable topic. Source examples include [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], (more Google Scholar results). Also, the article at this time is not written as a personal essay and is not based upon original research. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 13 December 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. Delete !voters are essentially invoking WP:NOTNEWS for deletion, while keep !voters are essentially (for the most part) invoking WP:EVENTCRIT for retention. Overall, no consensus for one course of action regarding the article has emerged in this discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ibolya Ryan[edit]

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

Delete Pr WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. A woman was murdered yesterday; She was a teacher, knifed to death by an unknown killer. Tragic as it is; there are thousands of murders which happen all over the world, every single day, I don´t see anything that makes *this* murder particularly noteworthy. I suggest that the author of this article takes it to his user-space, and let us see how the case develops. Huldra (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Huldra (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remind Huldra and the editors below of WP:RAPID.ShulMaven (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Huldra follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, slapping AfDs on terrorism-related articles.ShulMaven (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clear-cut case of NOTNEWS, and I would like to add that the persistent creation of such articles can be considered disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to add taht following editors around, joining AfDs on patently notable topics they write article on, and calling the creation of new articles on WP:GNG topics "disruptive" can be considered bullying.ShulMaven (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If it proves to be notable per WP:EVENT, it can be recreated. I share Drmies's concern about the disruptive mass-creation of spam articles on violence attributed to Arabs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A severe case of recentitis here. It is a rather sad testimony on our society that murder is routine news, but unless something stands out about this then there's really nothing newsworthy about this particular tragedy. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, attacks on foreigners are virtually unheard of in Abu Dhabi/U.A.E which is why the international press has been all over this.ShulMaven (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a tragic event, but should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm Neutral, article's been improved with more coverage on the event. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AmaryllisGardener and all the above. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have edited the topic adding detailed information and credible references. I believe it should not be deleted for the importance of the event and the probability of getting major updates about it, relating the crime to international terrorism movements that might be involved in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmemsme (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Every murder of a westerner gets a few press articles, big deal. Zero^talk 09:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this is a recent murder, it instantly garnered far more than routine coverage, and continues to do so in the days after the murder. And keep for the obvious reason that this murderer was targeting strangers on the sole basis of the victims' national origin, making the murder notable as a matter of wide public concern. Some of the comments above lead me to assume that the commenter did not take the trouble to see how much coverage exists, although AfD is a question of the article's notability, not the article's quality. Moreover, some editors here appear to have attempted to sink the article by removing information (about the victim) that routinely appears in murder articles. Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT WP:GEOSCOPE - worldwide coverage of far more than routine nature in leading papers that have followeed developments int he case, and Note particularly the amount of WP:INDEPTH coverage that has appeared. ShulMaven (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As was the case with the AfD on Shooting of Tamir Rice, Wikipedia AfD tags slapped on pages by editors failing to consider WP:RAPID on major current events getting hundreds of hits a day are an embarrassment to Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual embarrassment is editors using this project as another front in their Israel-Palestine propaganda war. Deaths in what is for all intents and purposes a warzone just aren't notable by default. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Tarc, Abu Dhabi is not a "warzone".ShulMaven (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is now been officially categorized as at least a lone wolf terrorist attack, and it was an obvious possibility as soon as the crime was reported, with international impact since the attacker appears to be motivated by radicalized religious beliefs, and the victim was a foreign American teacher. International terrorist attacks are always notable. Editors should be vigilant in preventing deletion of violent terrorist or terrorist-like attacks which may be part of an organized disinformation campaign Bachcell (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Plus there will be a trial, with corresponding ongoing coverage. Not mention coverage generated by the fact that Abu Dhabi will give Ryan's former husband the right to decide whether to impose the death penalty.ShulMaven (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a newspaper. And to see whether this has any lasting impact, well, we'll have to wait and see... WP:CRYSTAL. Note that the expected coverage mentioned just above by ShlMaven still does not push this over the bar of a routine event (sadly enough). And I, too, agree with Drmies that the repeated creation of this kind of articles is disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that "lasting impact" is required? WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". And WP:EVENT section WP:LASTING does not require that impact be lasting. Merely it states that enduring impact may indicate notability. Moreover WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, it applies to cases of "predict(ing) the future." Here we establish WP:GNG simply by referencinf reporting by major newspapers on a murder and attempted terror bombing that actually happened. ShulMaven (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Events like this are routine and inherently unencyclopedic, unless there's a lastig legacy. WP is not a newspaper. PLease post stuff like this on Wikinews where it may be appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not answered my question,: Where is it written that to pass WP:GNG an event must have enduring impact?ShulMaven (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We differ. I have also read WP:NOTNEWS:"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." I see ethnically-targeted terror attacks as significant events; you don't. To each his own. What I do object to is an experienced editor failing to acknowledge having made an insufficiently nuanced assertion on an AfD on something like "enduring impact". And I strongly object to being accused of "disruptive" editing for the act of creating a new article, when, clearly, the most that can be said is not that I am disruptive, but that opinions on whether this murder is notable.ShulMaven (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The widespread coverage of the event and its aftermath, coupled with the unusual and prominent media response of the Abu Dhabi government, leave little to no doubt that this event satisfies the GNG and associated event-related policies and guidelines. The suggestion/implication of delete proponents that the murder of a non-Israeli Christian by a non-Palestinian Muslim, more than a thousand miles away from Israel and Palestine, should be treated as a routine aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beyond illogical and is impossible to treat as credible. What is genuinely disruptive here are the ongoing efforts by partisans on each side of the underlying disputes to suppress information which reflects poorly on their "side" of the dispute. There is a certain willful blindness in this sort of discussion: Even though we know that the underlying conflicts have been the subject of detailed historical, political, and academic analysis for decades, and that events which receive this much substantial initial coverage will continue to receive sustained attention in formal scholarly works and historical books, there seems to be no end of pointless and purposefully divisive, extended discussion which does nothing to improve or to promote improvement of this encyclopedia. We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article. Whatever ill effects there might be from including less important events will be far outweighed by the amount of disruptive and divisive discussion that is prevented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article." I endorse this proposal.ShulMaven (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's utter nonsense. Regrettably, terrorist attacks are becoming routine, too. Are we going to document every stabbing/killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etx? Or are we only going to document them when the victim is a Westerner? --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope for a world in which Afghans have an independent press along with full literacy and the right to freedom of speech that makes Wikipedia possible. I also hope for a world in which ideologically motivated killings of individuals targeted for belonging to the "wrong" ethnic group is an unheard of event. But until then, yes, please, do write up "every stabbing/killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc." that can be supported with reliable sources. Earlier today I was beginning to write up, and source, some, well, what I suppose you would call "routine" mass rapes of the "wrong" ethnic group in Darfur by UNAMID. I consider it significant. So do The Economist, Slate and Foreign Policy.ShulMaven (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was discussed in my Introduction to Law class today; I didn't even raise the issue. This appears to be an ongoing matter of public concern beyond a single news cycle. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is an incident of significant importance and should not be deleted. SAMI ^talk 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant importance and it is established in sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unforunately, this IS news. 69,000 news article hits, including CNN, the Wall Street Journal, etc. This isn't an "ordinary" murder case - it's one that's garnered significant coverage, widespread coverage, and independent coverage. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:05, 10 December 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, Wifione ^Message 01:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cited in many reliable secondary sources. This article is clearly news. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS. Of course there are tons of "secondary sources" — this is true for every sensational news happening, which is why we have NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting historic importance at this very early juncture. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is clearly news and it has widespread coverage.-- Abstrakt (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct: clearly news... That's what WP is about, isn't it? Oh, wait! That's Wikinews we're talking about, not an encyclopedia... --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – People are not reading WP:EVENT. This must be deleted. Someone above says "this article is clearly news". I can happily say to him that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it doesn't matter if it is "news". We are an encylopaedia, and this event has no encyclopaedic significance or WP:LASTING impact. It is a parochial crime that has no place on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the level of attention it has received, it's astonishing that anyone would want to delete the article. Everyking (talk) 04:40, 20 December 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A3 (no meaningful, substantive content). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney death[edit]

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

This is a personal essay that's not encyclopedic at all. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTESSAY applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Deleted the WP:NOTESSAY part (all of it), tagged as A3. Deadbeef 07:31, 11 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wes for Youth Online[edit]

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

Organization with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:ORG. Its notability is entirely local to a single area, with no strong or sourced claim to being a topic of broader national or international interest — and the article is relying almost entirely on primary sources, with the few that do pass the reliable sourcing test not being sufficient in number to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a place where local or charitable organizations are entitled to free promotion just because their missions happen to be admirable — they have to meet the same inclusion standards as any other organization to earn inclusion here, and there's no evidence that this one does. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I definitely believe that this article meets inclusion standards. Although noteworthy on a local scale, they are unique in the fact that they are growing at a fast pace attracting plenty of attention. This subject of this article has even been spoken in the Ontario Legislative Assembly — Walker, Bill. "Ontario Legislative Assembly Hansard, September 12, 2013". http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=fr&Date=2013-09-12#P616_150295. Retrieved 26 November 2014. ((cite web)): External link in |website= (help). If you delete this organization, then a lot of organization's that use primary sources (i.e. mostly newspapers) will have to be deleted - example Jer's Vision or Ottawa Folk Festival. A lot of noteworthy organizations are not yet in secondary sources simply because they are new. Online Counselling is relevantly new in Canada and even guidelines are still being developed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada as discussed here. Through a simple search, this organization is one of the first offering online counselling in Canada and is point of reference for larger-scale organizations — Information, Grey Bruce. "Information Grey Bruce". http://centraleastontario.cioc.ca/record/BRU0294?UseCICVw=24. Retrieved 26 November 2014. ((cite web)): External link in |website= (help). There are plenty of primary sources to support this organization's noteworthy and it shouldn't be deleted simply because it's new and growing and has not yet been put in publications. DustinG1994 05:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jer's Vision is citing reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. The Ottawa Folk Festival isn't really citing any sources of either variety, admittedly, but it's salvageable as RS coverage of it does exist. But unfortunately, simply being the first (or one of the first) organizations offering any given service does not, in and of itself, get the organization a free pass into an encyclopedia — and neither does being mentioned in Hansard by the MPP for the area the organization serves, or being included in a local service directory — if there isn't sufficient RS coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. This is not a place where any organization is entitled to an article; coverage in a broad range of reliable sources is the very definition of what notability is on here. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a source that could be considered secondary? This is a learning curve for me... or this? or this? DustinG1994 02:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're on the right track with those for sure (media coverage is the key), but local community weeklies don't count for a lot when it comes to assessing whether the topic is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article — they're not less reliable in principle, but they're not distributed widely enough to demonstrate that the topic belongs in an encyclopedia. (For example, if the paper ever goes out of business, there aren't any newspaper archives that we could ever actually retrieve the content from.) In terms of actually demonstrating basic notability you have to look to major-market dailies like the Windsor Star, the London Free Press, the Waterloo Record, the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star, the National Post or The Globe and Mail — local weeklies are certainly valid for additional confirmation of facts after you've covered off the notability with enough of that higher class of sourcing, but they don't count toward the notability test themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 November 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 17:44, 3 December 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 01:02, 11 December 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. Of all the arguments presented here, Carrite's is the strongest. We keep pages based on their coverage in reliable sources, and that has been amply demonstrated here. If there were not much distinction between Use of Force Doctrine in general and Use of Force Doctrine in Missouri, then things may be different, but judging from the comments here that doesn't seem to be the case. Whether the topic is in the news or whether other articles do similar things are secondary concerns. There was also a concern that Missouri isn't mentioned in the main Use of force article - this can be solved through normal editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Force Doctrine in Missouri[edit]

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

This article seems to have been created simply as a result of the Michael Brown shooting. No other state has it's own use of force page and material in it seems largely a rehash of the regular use of force page with a bit of Missouri law thrown in. If there are any significant differences in some U.S. states compared to the national norm, I'm sure they can be added to the main use of force article keeping everything together in one comparative bunch, and avoid making Missouri appear to be some sort of special case. – JBarta (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbarta: I sincerely appreciate your contribution to this discussion. If the article does not meet Wikipedia standards then it should certainly be deleted. Let's look carefully at all the facts before making a final decision. You have probably already read the talk page intro. You may not yet have seen my latest acknowledgement and reply to EBY because I just now added it. I am particularly interested in issues surrounding your statement, "If there are any significant differences in some U.S. states compared to the national norm, ..." This illustrates the reason why I asserted that state-by-state articles on use of force are notable (just as state-by-state articles on same-sex marriage are notable), because it is the state laws that primarily govern use of force (although there have been two Supreme Court decisions of limited scope). It is the law in each state that determines whether an officer is justified in killing. Again, I am not particularly qualified to write on this topic - I only created one article for Missouri to plant a seed in hopes that people more qualified than I can properly develop the article, and hopefully develop corresponding articles for other states as well. Unfortunately I do not have any more time at the moment to go into further detail, but I hope this helps. Best, Djbaniel (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards delete). While I'm tempted to vote for merging the important concepts to a section within Use of force, I believe that WP:NNC might apply here. The article does not become notable because of its scrutiny in the wake of an event. Can someone weigh in on this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the editor that wrote most of this article, and would be happy to merge it. It was done as a gesture of goodwill towards the article creator and I do think it came from the shooting & riots. That said, I found some fascinating, educational stuff about use of force (in general going back to common law and about Missouri in particular) which is why, instead of just a stub, I kept going. Call it a Wiki-hole, we've all fallen in them.EBY (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no prospect whatsover of being deleted and should not have been nominated. The only issue is whether it should be merged and redirected to a broader article on the use of force or on Missouri law, or whether it should be kept as a standalone page. Since laws and law books tend not to be pan-jurisdictional, there is nothing inherently wrong with having an article on a sufficiently broad area of state law. If a state has its own legislation and case law on a something, then it is a special case. The question is how much there is to say about the topic. James500 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (neutral). Arguing for deletion would be the fact that this article obviously came about as a result of the events in Ferguson, which makes it topical right now, but I wonder if the highly specialized nature of this article (being about one subsection (#046) of one chapter (#546) of one U.S. state's statutes) will meet standards of WP:NOTE after the furor dies down. I suspect future traffic interested in the current events in Ferguson will start off at Ferguson, Missouri and then they'll click through to Shooting of Michael Brown or 2014 Ferguson unrest which will probably have been merged into one article by that point. It's kind of hard for me to imagine the scenario of a user interested in learning about the use of force doctrine in Missouri who isn't interested in learning about it in the context of these events. Arguing against deletion, is that the use of deadly force by law enforcement agencies is a topic that comes up over and over again in the United States, and the U.S. section of the Use of force article could be expanded to include a summary of the variation among U.S. states including Missouri, and referring to the AfD article via a ((Main)) template if that article became too long and a split was warranted. (Probably Fleeing felon rule should be merged into Use of force, too, but that's another issue.) Arguing for a merge, would be that Use of force is not that long right now (14kb) and the content could be merged there. So I'm neutral, with a slight lean toward MERGE if I had to pick. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is not remotely uncommon for an individual section of a statute to be massively notable. Such a section may receive truly extensive coverage because of the fact that judges have a habit of microanalysing legislation word by word (precedents of interpretation), legislatures have a habit of making (and proposing and debating) large numbers of amendments to existing legislation (they never stop tinkering) and all of this is reported, along with extensive critical commentary, by legal writers (including law professors, senior judges and practising lawyers who are considered experts) in absolutely huge numbers of law reports, articles in legal periodicals, annotated statutes (often revised), hansards, encyclopedias, treatises, textbooks and various other legal publications (that never ever shut up). And that is before we consider the output of historians, sociologists, political scientists and even ordinary journalists.
(2) I do not think that this article will only be read by people interested in a particular news story that I hadn't even heard of before it reached AfD or similar news stories that some people will not be particularly interested in. I think a far more likely audience consists of (in each case, both local and foreign) politicians, judges, court officials, police officers and other persons involved in law enforcement, prosecutors, other public officials, lawyers, litigants (including defendents and people looking for compensation), law professors and teachers, law students and even ordinary people who just happen to be interested in the law (and the number television programmes and amount of other fiction that use the law as a plot device suggests there are many such people; and of course there will be plenty of people who will be interested in this subject for its own sake because they are not anti-intellectual and their reading interests extend further than what they read in newspapers or see on television and because the subject is obviously important because of its potential to ruin lives). And then there are people who interested (professionally, academically or otherwise) in history, sociology, phillosophy, politics and political science. James500 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 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 18:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic passing GNG for significant coverage in multiple published sources. We're doing the sum of human knowledge thang, you know.... Carrite (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Missouri is the only state to have a "Use of Force Doctrine in XXXXX" article here. I would imagine while every state has its own peculiarities, these peculiarities are usually minor, and any notable peculiarities could be mentioned in the general Use of force article. Do you really believe that Missouri is so unique from the other 49 states that it justifies a separate article? – JBarta (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say that this first is the last? This is the seldom seen WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument... Carrite (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That a particular argument automatically doesn't have merit because it appears on some list of arguments to avoid is simplistic nonsense. In this case it is a rubber-stamp approach that ignores context and better possible alternatives (mentioned elsewhere). – JBarta (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also suggest that this article is somewhat of a WP:CONTENTFORK with the suggestion, simply by its lone existence that in the context of the shooting of Michael Brown, Missouri laws are significantly different than the norm and that was a factor in the death of Michael Brown. In addition to forking, this singular article also creates related problems of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. – JBarta (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are completely devoid of merit. "Doctrine X in State Y" is always a valid topic (though it may be mergeable into "Doctrine Z in State Y" if it hasn't received a lot of coverage relevative to its parent topic). The summary style is not a content fork. Law books are not normally pan-jurisdictional, so the coverage isn't likely to be. This sort of coverage has nothing to do with Michael Brown. There are no issues with neutrality here. The argument about the other states is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may well be that every single one of them merits a separate article, and I would suggest you actually check before assuming that they don't. James500 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists actually offers some rationale for deleting this article. A view that X should not exist because there are no other X's is not automatically an incorrect view. And law can most definitely be pan-jurisdictional as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. Murder is against the law in all 50 states. We have an article on murder. But there is no Murder in Ohio or Murder in Colorado. Within the murder article however you'll find a subsection listing murder law in several countries including Murder in the United States and within that article a section identifying notable differences in some states. This to me is a sensible structure that would also work well for Use of Force. Everything is not deserving of an article at any given point in time. If the Use of Force article were to list so many difference between states that a consensus is reached to give each state its own article, then that's another story. But we're nowhere near that point. And again, the OTHERSTUFF argument isn't in a vacuum. It is combined with other issues (NPOV, UNDUE, FORKING) that while you've chosen to dismiss, I believe are important to consider here. – JBarta (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, pan-jurisdictional articles may have problems with SYNTH and NOTDICTIONARY (lumping things together because they have the same name) because laws and law books are not necessarily pan-jurisdictional. A view that X should not have an article only because no other X's have one is automatically an incorrect view, since that says nothing about WP:N or WP:SPINOUT. And the only argument that can realistically be made here is for merger not deletion. James500 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider if the article gets merged, is that Missouri will then be the only state with a section in the Use of Force article. The problems of WP:UNDUE will remain. Considering that the only reason the Missouri section exists is an effort (intentional or otherwise) to imply that Missouri law is significantly different than the norm stemming from the Shooting of Michael Brown, the issue of WP:NPOV is still rearing it's ugly head. The only way to remove all these problems (as opposed to just moving them) is to delete this article outright and create (if anyone is so inclined) a section in the use of force article highlighting various notable differences between the various states... Missouri included if there are in fact notable differences. And while you may argue that every state's law is different from every other state (at some level of detail and hence your view that law is not pan-jurisdictional), in the context of this encyclopedia we're talking about notable differences that a typical reader of this encyclopedia may find useful. Wikipedia is not a law book. – JBarta (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTMANUAL has no application to this article, or anything like it, because this article contains no instructions or advice. Law books are not generally manuals, and, in any event, we do use manuals as sources: it is their style of writing that we do not imitate. Wikipedia includes all specialist subject encyclopedias and is therefore, amongst other things, a legal encyclopedia (WP:5). In fact, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the law of Missouri (most legal encyclopedias relate to a specific jurisdiction: for example, Scotland has the Stair Memorial Encyclopedia) and should therefore include the whole of that law, because that is what a legal encyclopedia does. Your comments about "notable differences" have no basis in policy or guideline (notability applies to topics of articles, not content within articles), and sound likely to result in Wikipedia being dumbed down to the level of a children's encyclopedia. It certainly wouldn't be compatible with being "the sum total of human knowledge" and would result in you injecting your POV about what is and isn't important into the encyclopedia. In any event, all such differences are important and useful. Your arguments about neutrality are nonsense. James500 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 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 00:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article WP:FAILN and does not deserve to survive as a stand alone article. Mhhossein (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. James500 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have argued for "merge" above and for "keep" here. They are two different things. Please clarify yourself. – JBarta (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue for merger. I said that this sort of article has WP:SNOW chance of being deleted on grounds of notability because there is always an obvious target for merger. James500 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (But possibly rename ariticle?) As evident from the references (see for, example, Keefe, Brendan (November 11, 2014). "Deadly force laws different on each side of Mississippi" http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/11/12/deadly-force-laws-different-mississippi-missouri-illinois/18898855/. KSDK. Retrieved December 19, 2014.), the laws governing use of force differ substantially state by state. Thus, a use of force article for each state is notable, just as a same sex marriage article for each state is notable. (This is because it is the state by state laws that primarily govern these topics, and there are sharp differences in the laws in different states. It is primarily the state law that defines when an officer is justified in using deadly force, although there have been some limited Supreme Court decisions as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbaniel (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is all putting the cart before the horse. If there were a state by state comparison already in the regular use of force article that was getting too big for that article, then fine... maybe each state should have an article. But there is no such thing. Not one scintilla of effort has been spent doing that. Now all of a sudden this one lone state article appears and the only reason for it's existence is that it's an outgrowth of the Michael Brown shooting. Each state deserves it's own use of force article? Fine, then write a bit on each state in the regular use of force article FIRST... then if each state warrants an article we can consider it. But skipping the important part and jumping right to creating an article for just one state to dangle in the wind by itself for all the wrong reasons is just not a neutral, unbiased or sensible way to build an encyclopedia. – JBarta (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my introduction on the article's talk page, I created the article for Missouri in hopes that there would be sufficient current interest to properly develop the article. Hopefully articles for other states would follow. Djbaniel (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the example of Same-sex marriage in the United States, if you look at the history of that article, it started out with state by state sections listing notable information/differences between some states, then as time went on and those bits grew, various states broke off from time to time with their own article. A sensible way to go about it, unlike the backwards approach championed by a few here. – JBarta (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's better to start with "state by state sections listing notable information/differences between some states," until various states break off from time to time with their own article, then that is certainly fine by me. :-) Djbaniel (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JBarta: It is your approach that is "backwards" (and a recipe for SYNTH), because it does not follow what reliable sources actually do. There are plenty of books specifically about missouri law, or areas of it (try searching for terms such as "missouri practice", "missouri statutes", "missouri criminal law", "missouri criminal code" etc if you don't believe me). It is, like the law of other jurisdictions, an independent topic that needs to be dealt with in its own right. And I don't believe that a system of law can be understood by looking at differences from other systems, because they will be almost random and presented outside of their real context, which is the system of law they are part of. James500 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of Same-sex marriage in the United States and how that article developed you'll see an awful lot of comparison of the sort you seem to be advocating against. No subject is in a vacuum... even if you wish it to be. Any subject where there may be differences between states should certainly be fleshed out to show those differences in a balanced and sensible way. But let's take that one step at a time... as they did in the Same-sex marriage in the United States article. I'm sure that's a topic as full of passionate editors as this one, but to their credit, they didn't let their passion overrun their common sense. Let's develop some meaty state by state material in the general use of force article first, and then talk about possible spitting off into various states. – JBarta (talk) 19:28, 21 December 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Lightning[edit]

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

Advertisement for a whiskey that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 3 December 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 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Didn't find any coverage suggesting notability; current article is essentially an advertisement. News sources suggested LL may be a nickname for a football player or team (?) and the term may have been around to describe a type of whiskey (not a specific company) during the mid 19th century in southern US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 8 December 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 00:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find significant independent coverage for this business. The bizneworleans article is good but isn't enough coverage on its own. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I do not know if this is the correct place for this opinion, however: how is this wiki page any different then the other thousands is pages on other distilleries, breweries, and wineries? Louisiana Lightning is a whiskey just like Jack Daniels, Ole smokey, and Jim beam. A google search will show that people are searching for and blogging about Louisiana Lightning. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, a place for people learn about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.115.64 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct place for your opinion, although if you want to !vote you'll want to start your comment with an asterisk and say either "Delete" or "Keep." The standards for having an article here are that the subject should have significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. If you can find multiple news articles or the like that discuss this company in more than a passing mention then we may have enough to make a reliable article out of, but when I looked I couldn't find much. Chuy1530 (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I created this page for Louisiana Lightning Clear Sour Mash Whisky. I have travelled to many distillers and when this one opened up in my home state the amount of interest it generated was extremely great. Many people get excited about local flavor and fauna and I thought wiki would be a great avenue for people to learn about this. As mentioned above, there are wiki pages for all American distilleries. This is NOT an advertisement. Please tell me how to improve this page and I will be more than happy to change it however you would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix25782000 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has rules regarding sources, verifiability, noteworthiness, not misusing references as spam links, and so forth, which take time to learn. My suggestion is copy-paste the existing article to your computer, learn Wikipedia's rules, then in six months maybe after the article gets deleted, you'll know how to float one which meets Wikipedia's standards? One of the rules to learn is that every business, or every distiller, deserves some kind of article because it is a distiller, or because other distilleries have articles. My guess is not all distilleries have articles about them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 18 December 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. czar ⨹ 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan MacDonald[edit]

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

No in-depth secondary sources, just primary sources and blogs. The strongest source I can see here is a WP:NEWSPRIMARY Forbes interview. McGeddon (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article has been updated with multiple news articles as sources as well as sources of his ongoing international speaking clearly demonstrating his influence. If there is still not enough secondary sources could I get some feedback/comment . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieaviner (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I’ve amended/ included better sources in place of bad sources, as well as deleted what i couldn’t source. When I compare this to many other renowned speakers, i think i’ve included more content so i’m trying but i don’t understand why this is still up for deletion, could i please have some feedback on what else needs to be done? I’ve included so much already. Natalieaviner (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It feels like you're bombarding with links independent of quality at the moment. Most of the sources are self links or appear to be press releases meaning that the article feels like advertising. A couple of good sources about him in the national press (that class as reliable sources) are what you need - it's not quantity you need but quality. Even the BBC link is just a quote by him rather than something about him. I'm currently therefore leaning Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Natalieaviner, what is your connection to MacDonald? I'm always a bit suspicious that a WP:SPA has WP:COI, and this article reads in a promotional manner. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 3 December 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 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Thanks for your feedback Neonchameleon, I see what you mean and i’ve edited the page. Boleyn, a friend showed me his ted talks and then i found the rest of his videos, he's been really inspiring, i was surprised he didn't have a wiki. Natalieaviner (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG/Comment Please STOP adding links to this page until you learn how to cite sources. Could this article be "Userfied" until the references get cleaned up? It hurts my eyes just to look at them, and there is no way to know what is being cited without following every link. Things like ""story-23084981". grimsbytelegraph." and "Template:ISBN 1-49-546347-8" are NOT valid citations. Please see WP:CITE. LaMona (talk) 00:41, 10 December 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 00:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to get this to a point that we make a fair determination. In the end, I only did about half of what is needed. I can find a few reliable third-party sources, but most of the information in this article isn't supported by them. The person's 3 books were self-published. He has definitely held positions in the telecomm industry, but I cannot find support for other positions, e.g. government ministries, which are alluded to here. I still suggest Userfy if Natalieaviner wishes to work on this further. Otherwise, I'm afraid it must go the way of delete. LaMona (talk) 21:53, 11 December 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, though I am happy to userfy if anyone wants to keep looking. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betws, Anglesey[edit]

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

There is nothing on the map at the coordinates given here (although the location is in Anglesey). With no references and no content, it is impossible to verify that this is not made up. ubiquity (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Ubiquity, An AfD started within seven minutes of a page's creation? How much WP:BEFORE did you conduct? What WP:ATD did you consider? Did you consider contacting the creator first and seeing if they were still working on it? Did you consider a notability tag or request for assistance at the appropriate Wikiproject? Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree with what I've said above, I've just read it back and relaised how harsh it sounds. After all, I have rushed the creation. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyleyn, I'm very sorry if I jumped the gun here. However, I did go through the steps in WP:BEFORE. I like articles on geography, and often attempt to repair them when I can. But this place does not appear on the map, and I could find no indication that it exists at all. When I googled "Betws Anglesey", I found nothing except references to Betws-y-Coed, which already has an article. The broken formatting, the total lack of content, and the lack of corroborating evidence gave me the idea that this was made up. My apologies if this is not the case, but maybe it would be better to keep the article in Draft: mode until there's more "there" there? ubiquity (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete poking around on various maps I think I've found what it's referring to at "Llanbadrig, Betws Council Houses", which if you Google it finds a bus-stop on the A5025 near some houses, around 53.414467, -4.417393. But Llanbadrig is a village already with an article. A row of three or four houses in a village, or a bus stop, is not worthy of a separate article except in very rare cases (such as the houses being listed buildings).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it refers to a council housing estate. I actually moved this from Betws disambiguation page, where it gave too much info for a disambiguation page. The references it gave are here: Domesday Maps website, [34] The place names of England & Wales, by Rev. James B. Johnston] but I can't find anything useful in either. I've also added a couple of potentially useful external links, [35] and [36]. It exists and has a listed building, but I can't verify more than that, so have struck out my vote for the time being. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The one link that seems to actually have content, this one, refers to an entirely different place, a Grade II listed farmhouse near the east shore of Anglesey, while Llanbadrig is to the north. It doesn't strike me as especially notable though. To me (and this is entirely my own view, I've not read it anywhere) Grade I listed tend to be exceptional examples of local architecture and so often worthy of their own article but Grade II listed are far more mundane and rarely independently notable unless for some other reason, such as being historically important. Of course it's impossible to tell from this article which doesn't even identify the settlement/row/farmhouse in question and does nothing to establish its notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 27 November 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 19:05, 3 December 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 00:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I should add one thing I found (my knowledge of Welsh being very limited) while searching for this and looking at other things called wikt:Betws, it's just Welsh for chapel, or prayer house. A small place of worship basically. So when someone writes "Betws" on the map it may just mean [a] chapel, like we use words and symbols on a modern map to show such features. Some of the places listed in this version of Bettws are notable settlements such as Betws-y-Coed but it looks like at least some aren't.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be only a farm, and sources don't provide much information about it; the location and inline citation are for two different farms with the same name and the external link is unlikely to be relevant as the grid reference is inconsistent with the latitude and longitude - the farm near Llanbadrig is at SH3993, for which the correct link would probably be http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11372258. Peter James (talk) 22:42, 12 December 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). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag[edit]

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

Non Notable civil servant. His credibility as an author has not been supplemented by any awards or recognitions. The post held by him is also not significant. Not enough references. Uncletomwood (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 15:43, 26 November 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 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. An attempt to confirm sources that he was some sort of state cabinet minister found nothing. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline given the significant coverage they have received in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, Economic Times, Times of India 1, Times of India 2, The Hindu, Outlook India, Indian Express, etc. Subject may also meet the WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3, for they have written a book that was subject to multiple independent reviews ([37], [38], [39]). We may at least write a stub using these sources. There are many other passing mentions of the subject, may be found on clicking this link. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian and Uncletomwood, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 06:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm making no further comment until somebody does the work of fastening those citations into coherent prose in the article. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for analysis of sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting.... Bearian (talk) 19:29, 16 December 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Jasper[edit]

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

Not notable. Almost all sources are to his own writings, the one exception being the ASA announcing he's joining one of their magazines, so not a reliable source. No indication he's done anything to make him notable. I would note also that a lot of it seems to be copied and pasted from e.g. his CV, [40], and so is highly promotional and possibly a copyright infringement. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but.... GScholar shows several strong indications that he's notable - a paper with over 1000 citations and two books and two other papers each with over 500 citations to start with, fairly obviously meeting WP:PROF#C1. However, I would agree with the nominator that this does not justify the current article as it stands - until and unless some independent secondary sources are added, the current lead and a shorter bibliography of some of his most highly-cited works is probably as much as can be justified. PWilkinson (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF#C1 and #C8, currently editing series for Oxford University Press, has frequently cited books from respected university presses. However, the long section on The Art of Moral Protest is the editor's own commentary, which is WP:OR. I would recommend moving that to an article on the book and/or tagging it as OR. Agree that the list of works should be trimmed. And that it needs editing to get rid of material copied from the CV. So substantial cleanup needed, but Jasper himself is notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Are there any sources on the above assertions? The OUP claim is sourced to this link which is both first party and does not mention him. And WP:PROF#Citation metrics explicitly cautions against relying on Google Scholar as a metric. Nothing has addressed the concerns about sources (concerns which aren't new, it's been tagged since July 2010), it still has none which aren't to his own writings or to first parties.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a question at WT:Notability_(academics) about other citation indexes. About editing the ASA journal, the ASA itself is fine as a source on non-controversial questions such as who edits the journal. About the OUP claim, you can verify that by going to Amazon and checking the copyright page of a book in the series. That's what I did. It will say "Edited by Clifford Bob and James Jasper". I'm not saying that this is adequate for the article, only that it shows for purposes of this AfD discussion that he does in fact edit the OUP series. Therefore it is likely that a source saying so exists. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record gives him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and as editor of the book series Oxford Studies in Culture and Politics there's also a plausible case for #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see which of the many things listed in WP:PROF#C1 he satisfies. You write his 'citation record' and PROF#C1 says he should be the author 'highly cited' works. But he does not appear in this list (the link provided to Margin1522) of highly cited academics. Otherwise there's just the GScholar number which WP:PROF cautions 'is a rough guide only' and gives no indication what number would indicate a highly cited academic. And WP:PROF#C8 is for head/chief editors of major journals. Being editor of a book series isn't the same thing (it is mentioned as a contributing factor in #C1).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes, but just because GS is a rough guide doesn't mean it should be ignored. I'm just getting started on AfD, so I haven't read all the way through Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics). But there are numbers that editors with experience in commenting on these matters know. The problem seems to be that it varies wildly by field and that GS tends to be less selective than the major citation indexes. But generally it seems that papers with hundreds of GS citations are notable. If you have access to an expensive citation index like Scopus, and the numbers there are much lower, then that would be cause for concern. But I think 1000 cites on GS is more than enough for notability. Especially since the citing papers are themselves highly cited. Chicago and Stanford are premier academic publishers. The book has to be very good to be published there. As an editor, he edited Contexts, from the ASA. I'd say he's probably the star of the department at a notable research school. To me, that qualifies. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what criteria people are using to determine notability, but I sure don't see it. Yes, he has published books and articles -- he is, after all, an academic. There are no significant third-party sources here. He does not appear to have won any awards or held notabile positions in his field. I found one single paragraph book review in NYT, plus a review in: "Social Forces Vol. 77, No. 4, Jun., 1999 The Art of Moral Pro..." which I can't see (because JSTOR) but the journal is not held by many libraries (total 43 worldwide as per WorldCat), which is all I have to go on for its importance. I judge this person to be an academic, but not a notable academic. LaMona (talk) 00:23, 10 December 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 00:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per number of citations. A GScholar search via PoP software comes up with more than 7000 cites, which is quite something in this not very highly cited field. WorldCat also shows his books are held by thousands of public libraries and some of them have been translated into at least two languages (Japanese and Turkish). Btw, the journal User LaMona referred to is actually held by much more libraries than stated (she had apparently only checked this entry). I'm sure many more reviews could be found (this, for example). There certainly is a need for additional independent sources, but that's not an issue that should lead to deletion of the whole article, imo. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my view article could do with some editing but seems to be a clearly WP:Prof notable academic (judged by number of citations to his works). (Msrasnw (talk) 17:57, 16 December 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.