< 6 February	8 February >

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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Cameron[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as required by notability and the general notability guide. What this articles comes across as is a simple Curriculum vitae, and the fact that the subject's place of employment issued a press release trumpeting the creation of the Wikipedia bio an active movement to use the project for marketing purposes. Being the president of a professional organization is admirable, but it is not an inherently notable position. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is no high cited computer scientists, but his articles as listed at the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography have been cited in some (dozens) of independent reliable sources. This together with being founding president should give him (just) enough notability for inclusion. -- Mdd (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being cited by others is not in itself a measure of notability. WP:PROF covers some cases for notability for academic types, but it is not a literal substitute for the general notability guide. If a person is to have a Wikipedia article, we expect that reliable sources have written about the individual to some extent. If such sources do not exist, then they do not deserve a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These source does exist (to some extent). For example the first source listed, describes some of the outcomes of Cameron's work in stating "... Importance of improving the curricula in schools of information systems in the business proposition of SOA as a strategy is discomfort of instructors in improving courses in information systems, so that they are current with industry methods and and practices of firms (Cameron, 2007)" (online) Based on this kind of (preliminary) observations I thought there was enough to start an article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 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 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:06, 9 February 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 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 10 February 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 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE. For the reasons Tarc mentioned above, and because of a massive undeclared COI. Interestingly enough, User:Nickmalik (Avinash Nicklas Malik) who is a major contributor to this article is on the board of the Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge with Cameron,[1] and obviously acquainted through the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations, [2] and quite unbelievably Cameron was surprised when his friend (I mean, "an editor") called him up to say "hey, dude, I wrote that Wikipedia entry you told me to write".[3]. I wouldn't be surprised if a connection between Cameron and Mdd (who started the article and has other suspicious editing behavior that compels me to wonder about potential COIs) were eventually uncovered with a few quick google searches. Burn this vanity circle jerk with fire.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search will reveal no connection between Cameron and me, because there isn't any. There is direct contact between me and Nick Malik here on Wikipedia, and Nick Malik is closely working together with Cameron. However, if you would make that Google search you would find another very peculiar 2013 press release, here where Cameron explains that "After publication, the paper will serve as the new entry for EA in Wikipedia." This indeed happened November 2013, and I opposed toward that step, see here with no furter response. Personally, I admit that this kind of press releases are strange, but I think that should not affect our policy. I try to write not just about the main events of this field, but also about its origin and about the state of the art, and for that reason this article was started. -- Mdd (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is a resume and there is a lack of good sources to turn it into anything else. He is not sufficiently notable to bother trying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 15 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LuminAID[edit]

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

relatively trivial invention, minor awards, and the sourcing isPR or only for the minor awards.

another article from AfC DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the very long coverage it FT would normally qualify for GNG purposes, but the author's declaration at the end of that article that she intends to turn it into a feuilleton with follow-up articles about the entrepreneur makes me doubt that coverage of the company is the true intent of that FT article. I'm not sure what to say about the prize-focused coverage in CTB; the previous year's winner NuMat Technologies doesn't have an article and neither does the Clean Energy Challenge (the prize/competition); a bit of googling on the latter found [4] which shows that they offer more than one award/category per year. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are indeed a couple of follow-up articles in FT "MBA start-up is seen in a different light" and "Social venture makes light work of expansion". Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also coverage on BBC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's judged not notable enough by itself, it could be merged with solar-powered flashlight, which seems to be general category for this line of product [5] "And because they pack thin and flat, 50 LuminAIDs can be shipped in the space needed for just eight regular solar flashlights." Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly even their social enterprise aspect (buy one, another goes to the needy) isn't new. The exact same scheme was done by a company called SunNight Solar with their BoGo light (fount it mentioned in a book [6]) and has its own, albeit somewhat less impressive press coverage NYT, Newsweek, [7], Time, CNET, NPR, [8]. It just goes to show how little research journalists put into stories these days before declaring something totally unprecedented (reminds me of #lazyjournos). Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable.[9] [10]. OccultZone (Talk) 10:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep at the moment. It seems that FT and BBC sources may satisfy WP:GNG. At the same time, if the winning of these minor awards stays the single event and no real progress to commercialize that product would be made, it would be better to merge into solar-powered flashlight as suggested by Someone not using his real name. Beagel (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG when you consider the earlier mentioned websites plus this 2-page article in Forbes (magazine) [11] along with multiple briefer mentions in Outside (magazine) [12], Gizmodo [13], and Wired (magazine) [14]. Novickas (talk) 00:04, 10 February 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 Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics and/or 2014 in aviation. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 05:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines Flight 751[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Event is of no long term significance. ...William 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 20:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions....William 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions....William 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~Delete~~ - WP:NOTNEWS. This is a very minor incident. No one got injured, much less got killed. Events like this do not usually garner WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or lead to a significant change in aviation procedures. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote below. --Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - until we know the full story etc. I also think NOTNEWS does not apply.. if anything NOTNEWS is a hollow guideline as articles are based on news articles for references.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of NOTNEWS is to ensure that not every single incident which gets a brief spike in news coverage when they first come out is included in the encyclopedia. We want to include the events with historical value; this is not one of them. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is ultimately too trivial for an article. Alternatively, merge and redirect to a concerns and controversies article if one exists. Reso lute 20:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - The story is still unfolding and there have been incidents where nobody was injured. Sam.gov (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing appears to indicate it has any notability for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We should wait until the story unfolds before rushing to conclusions. It happened literally 2 hours ago, give it a break. It happened in concurrence with the Sochi Olympics and is particularly telling, as it underscores the security threats going on with that event. As the event unfolds and we get more information, we can expand the article. Connected to the Olympics, it will receive a ton of coverage in the coming days. Give the article a chance. KonveyorBelt 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could merge the article to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics for now, and if the incident develops to the point of notability, then we can make the article independent again. Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. For those saying "wait", I point you to WP:NEWARTICLE, which says "being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Wikipedia it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:POTENTIAL. KonveyorBelt 21:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "potential" does this have? I don't see any. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my !vote, it is connected to the 2014 olympics and will thus receive a lot of coverage and more details as time goes on. KonveyorBelt 21:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a one off news event barely associated with the Olympics. It'll get news coverage for the remainder of the current news cycle, and that'll be it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous security scares related to Sochi like the suicide bombings in December, and security at those Olympics will receive coverage. The man wanted presumably to bomb Sochi or create a disturbance. KonveyorBelt 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Its unlikely this incident will have legs, but there is no reason not to cover it somewhere. It is already mentioned at my propsed merger location. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; come on... this is not a notable topics. The sources make it perfectly clear some drunk man with a stupid sense of humor shouted at a cockpit for 5 minutes before calming down (the fact that the airplane crew responded so wise indicates that this happens a lot...). The only significance of this event is that major newspapers seem not to be able to see the difference between important events and trivia.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nobody got hurt doesn't mean it's not notable, if he'd killed someone, it would be no more or less notable. KonveyorBelt 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The drunk bastard had no dangerous items on him... How was he supposed to have killed somebody... by bad breath???? Everything points out that this incident was nothing more then a drunk shooting at a cockpit and that there was no danger to the aircraft passengers. (Sorry; but real life is just not Die Hard 3...)

PS Merging this article with Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics is OK by me; as long as it makes clear that there was never any danger to the aircraft passengers (nor to the Olympic Games). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anything but noteworthy. This will be forgotten by next week. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics I strongly oppose deletion, how many flights do you know of where they scamble fighter jets to land an airplane due to a person? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014 in aviation and Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Iff that guy had an actual bomb or other explosive device, then it may be kept, I think. Brandmeister^talk 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014 in aviation and/or Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. If the event becomes notable enough for its own article (seems unlikely, but...), it can be recreated. Novusuna ^talk 23:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. As a one-line bit in that article, this is reasonable. As a stand-alone article? All I can say is Dear Lord, how somebody thought this was notable enough for its own article I'll never know. Suitable for inclusion in the concerns-and-controversies article, but has no notability at all for a standalone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics - It makes sense to mention this at the controversies article. However, I maintain that this is not notable enough for its independent stand-alone article. Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Look at the name of the merge article. Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. It happened in the air over the Ukraine and Istanbul Turkey. Where is there an news article stating this was a concern in Sochi? To me it looks like WP:SYNTH....William 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the Ukraine" is not the (English) common name of Ukraine since December 1991.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Because the would-be hijacker's "demanding to be flown to Sochi" makes the connection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics-Per above. Not notable enough for its own article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge eper ThaddeusB and the rest as this can into the security concerns section with a sentence or .2.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not-news.--Dmol (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Doesn't warrant its own article in my opinion. Palmtree5551 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. WP:EVENTS seems to side with the hijacking not getting its own article: it does not appear to have precipitated any changes in airline policy etc., and the event seems to have already stopped being reported on. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, this flight has no significance outside of this event and, in particular, these Olympics Deville (Talk) 03:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Drunks on planes are regular occurrences, rarely of any long- or mid-term significance, and as such is unlikely to be of value as a merge. Let alone its own article. Leondz (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must jump aboard the "Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics" bandwagon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics per all above, but not too significantly, per Leondz. Ithinkicahn (talk) 03:27, 16 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Phyfe[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Fundamentally no more than a local niche act. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This gentleman was a staple fixture at renaissance faires across the country as well as touring with Ritchie Blackmore, a well-known rock musician, and being a recording artist played across a variety of formats. None of this qualifies him as a "local niche act", by any stretch or reasonable standard whatsoever. By this complainant's reasoning, any independent musician who identifies with a specific genre should also be considered for deletion. Good luck with that. - Scarletminx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletminx (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The ignorance of John from Idegon does not make this man local or niche. He is icon of modern folk, medieval, and Renaissance music exercising tremendous influence throughout the US and the World. Even though he gets regular play on many radio stations, he has deliberately chosen to go his own route rather than that of the commercial pop scene. "In contrast to modern society's anti-individual influences, such as manufactured stardom and fluffy, insubstantial music, Phyfe's choice to record on his own independent label reflects his interest in maintaining integrity in his art while focusing on individuality." http://www.renaissancemagazine.com/backissues/owain.html Someone with more time than I should properly add this citation to his Article, Thank you. Maghnuis 21:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maghnuis (talk • contribs)

I am not sure how many niche acts have their music used in Wim Wenders movies. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1440266/soundtrack?ref_=tt_trv_snd Jejones3141 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. IMO, the media coverage alone supports the subject's notability. He has performed way too widely to simply be called a "local niche act". Rosencomet (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rosencomet, could you be more specific? I don't see any media on him from reliable sources excepting the story in the local paper cited in the article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 2 magazine reviews of Phyfe, one TV review, and seven album reviews listed in the article. They exist whether there are links supplied or not. This is aside from the inline citations.Rosencomet (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again Rosencomet, could you be more specific? One of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Period Music for Modern Times", Renaissance Magazine, v.3 no.4, pp.50-53. (That would put it in 1999, I believe.) Owain Phyfe and the New World Renaissance Band did for medieval and Renaissance music what Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention did for English and Scottish folk music, i.e. make it accessible to modern audiences, and did so at Renaissance fairs, where a quite astonishing amount of the music heard comes from centuries after the Renaissance. Jejones3141 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how. The article was created more than four years before the death of the subject.Rosencomet (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:kennyfiddler Keep! Owain Phyfe was not simply a local niche act. He performed at renaissance faires and festivsl events from Maryland to Los Angeles, and had a somewhat rabid following. (I wish I had a following like that...) While he may be seen as simply a performing musician, he was a keeper of the Welsh Bardic tradition in a very real sense. To get a feel for how Phyfe affected his fans, see this page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/314018545360069/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCE1:50B0:7CEB:3A62:5FE3:A087 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews are posted on the page, most of his albums can be found listed on the Modern Bard website ^[1]. Seeing as he performed coast to coast^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17], I'm not certain how he is considered a "local" act. I think that the Renaissance Magazine article fairly well establishes his place as a major entertainer in the genre. However, since citations are wanted? 7 of his albums are available for sale at Exodus books ^[18], 5 are available through CD Universe ^[19], and there are over 30 tracks on itunes ^[20]. So...the albums exist. The articles mentioned by Rosencomet appear to be linked through from the page itself. As for their being no media from reliable sources? Renaissance Magazine (available at major bookstores including Barnes & Noble) has written about him twice. The first article is available online through their site ^[21]. " Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted"/"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"/"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."^[22] All of the preceding points from the notability requirements come into play here. Twice appeared in Renaissance Magazine, one of the most prominent representatives of the Ren Faire music scene (as also noted in the Renaissance Magazine articles, and there is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Ceronomus (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He played nationally, not locally. Playing Renaissance music is no more "niche" than playing jazz or classical. Touring with Ritchie Blackmore is not to be sneezed at, and his facility in multiple languages and presence on at least one movie soundtrack also raises him above the average. Not to mention the awards he has won and the international exposure. If the tone of the article is too "memorial" that can certainly be remedied by less drastic methods than deletion. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Owain was a wonderful musician who worked at Renaissance festivals all over the country. I first encountered him at the Tennessee Renaissance Festival in 1999 and fell in love with his music. Every opportunity I had to go back to that faire, I always looked for him. It was my pleasure to come across him several years later at the North Carolina Renaissance Faire in Raliegh, NC, as well as at the Maryland Renaissance Festival. Unless you wish to consider the entire country as local, it is incorrect to consider him nothing more than a local act. Owain's music has been used in multiple episodes of The Renaissance Festival Podcast. His music is even available to listen to on the Pandora Internet Radio site, although to find his music you have to search for New World Renaissance Band. He has been in multiple issues of Renaissance Magazine, including being featured on the cover of Issue #10. The article from that issue was titled Period Music for Modern Times. An article entitled "In Memory of Owain Phyfe" was included in Issue #88, but the article is not available online.--Lorenalis (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Owain played throughout the country and had a large following due to it. Modern Renaissance Music is no more niche than many other forms of music. He was not a local garage band playing bars for drinks. He was a well known artist in his genre with several recorded albums to his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingotter72 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our notability guideline for music, Wikipedia:Notability (music), it says that for musicians who are "outside mass media traditions" that they be "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". Owain Phyfe was frequently covered in the sub-cultures of the Renaissance Faire and early music. He was on the cover of Renaissance magazine, and his music was reviewed many times in periodicals associated with early music and the Renaissance Faire: Tudor Times, Magical Blend, Rambles, Greenman Reviews, DaBelly and Revue magazine which is for crossover classical music. He was a record company owner and founder, a small label focusing on the RenFaire crowd. Furthermore, he toured North America and Europe with Ritchie Blackmore and Candice Night, touring as "Blackmore's Night with special guest Owain Phyfe". Blackmore's Night played a lot of Ren Faires and they took Phyfe to Germany. Phyfe played at the wedding of Blackmore and Night in 2008.[15] This biography definitely should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phyfe has one film music credit for the Wim Wenders film Pina as seen at Allmusic and IMDb. He performs in the straight-to-video film The Lost Princess (2005). These little bits add incrementally to notability. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other coverage: the New World Renaissance Band's album Where Beauty Moves and Wit Delights was Number Five on the 1994 Top Ten List of Jurgen Gothe's DiscDrive program on CBC Radio 2 (out of Vancouver, which is rather distant from Detroit for a "local niche act" to be known.

"(Disc No. 5) The New World Renaissance Band-Where Beauty Moves and Wit Delights

“A sparkling ensemble (from Texas and Michigan) making ancient music spring to life—by keeping the instruments in tune and maintaining a sense of humor. No museum pieces here, despite the fact they are all ‘ancient songs of love and adventure.’ Owain Phyfe leads with voice and a wire-strung instrument called the chitarra battente. There is clarity, charm and excellent production—fine packaging for the disc, too. If you feel that much of early music is the domain of the academics, let these latter-day troubadors entertain your next dinner party with vitality and joy.”

—Jurgen Gothe" Jejones3141 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above. Ridiculous to bring to an AfD. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please KEEP Owain Phyfe. He is a very important musician in a very large culture of the Renaissance Faire go-ers and is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.204.228 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Owain Phyfe and Sasha Raykov performed at the 2002 Bloomington Early Music Festival (http://www.blemf.org/index.html). Photos can be found at http://www.kevinatkins.org/blemf2002/. (The Nightwatch Recording site has the text of a review of the performance; alas, one must be a paying subscriber to the Bloomington Herald Times to see the text on their web site, though anyone can search for it and find that they do have it.) This festival is the only one of its kind in the Midwestern United States, and collaborates with faculty and students in the Early Music Institute of Indiana University. Anyone familiar with the early music movement will know of Indiana University's relevance to it, and a look at the vitae of performers who have played at the Festival would show, I think, that they would not select a "local niche act" to perform there. 174.30.85.99 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Isn't it time to close this nomination? Ten "Keeps" and not a single "Delete".Rosencomet (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rosencomet, there is really only one of the "Keep" votes that proffers a valid argument for keeping, and that is the one from Binksternet, but his argument is compelling enough to prompt me to withdraw my nomination. Please see the instructions for commenting at an AfD discussion. This isn't a poll where people can say they like an article. You have to provide valid arguments based in policy and on reliable sources. Binksternet's is the only !vote to do that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, John. That kind of re-assessment of your initial position shows your depth and objectivity. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalagara Ram Babu[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources about this person (in English). He is mentioned on many web pages, but I can't find out if he is alive. If he is, than this is an unsourced BLP. Even if he is dead, we need reliable sources to prove wp:Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A zamindar or zaminder or zemindar on the Indian subcontinent was an aristocrat, typically hereditary, who held enormous tracts of land and held control over his peasants, from whom the zamindars reserved the right to collect tax (often for military purposes). Over time, they took princely and royal titles such as Maharaja (Great King), Raja (King), Nawab (Lord), Mirza (Prince), Chowdhury (Lord), "Reddy", "Naidu," "Gounder," and many others.Although zamindars were considered to be equivalent to lords and barons[1] in some cases they were seen as independent, sovereign princes.[2] Often zamindars were Indian princes who lost their sovereignty due to British Rule (see: Madras Zamindari). For example, the Sivaganga Zamindari and Ramnad Zamindari were the lesser and greater Kingdom of Marava ruled by the royal family till 1803; ever since then they were the Zamindars of Marava. There is no clear distinction between royal zamindars, such as Raja Venkata Ranga Rao, or merely aristocratic zamindars. Many kings were former zamindars, such as the Royal House of Benares; conversely many new zamindars were old kings.[citation needed] As a result, there is some confusion about the Indian kingdoms about who is a king and who is a zamindar, as there were as many as 568 kingdoms and, according to some other sources, 572 princely states in India before independence. During the Mughal Empire, zamindars belonged to the nobility[3] and formed the ruling class. Emperor Akbar granted them mansabs and their ancestral domains were treated as jagirs.[4] The practice took structural footholds before the Mughal Era and was solidified by the indirect system of taxation in the Mughal Empire and British Raj. After the British withdrew, the system was legally abolished with the creation of India, Pakistan and (after independence in 1971) Bangladesh; however, it is current in some areas of modern Pakistan. Zamindars built lavish palaces, lush gardens, schools, temples and other venues of philanthropy. Several families were of ancient lineage and had been independent rulers in earlier periods. In most cases, zamindar families were descendants of cadet branches of earlier royal families.[citation needed] Zamindars held considerable powers in their territories: magisterial, army recruitment (as lathials), revenue collection and taxation, among others. Other terms for zamindar were and are used. For example, a zamindar is known as a Wadera or Wadero in Sindh and as a thakur in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya pradesh, Himachal pradesh, Haryana, Uttrakhand, Chhatisgarh and Bihar. In the Punjab and Haryana, there are multiple variations, such as chaudhary (which often became lambardar or zaildaar during the British Empire's occupation of North India), Sardar and Malik (an Arabic term which literally means "King"). The word zamindar is derived ultimately from the Persian زمین Zamīn, "earth/land", and the common suffix دار -dār, "-holder" (also found in many of the terms above).[5] The term means, in Persian, 'land owner.' Contents [hide] 1 Mughal era 2 British era 2.1 History 2.2 Accession 3 Southern India 4 After creation of India 5 After independence of Bangladesh 6 In Pakistan 7 See also 8 References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire.fly (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buguroo Offensive Security[edit]

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

not notable, article barely touched since creation in 2011, COI very likely Ysangkok (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with Nom. OccultZone (Talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed notability, though I may have missed some Spanish-language coverage. Did not find any mention in any books or scholarly journals. The following links provide some coverage, but I'm reliant on translate.google.com to understand them, and I have no idea which if any might be considered reliable sources:
- computerworld.es
- itseguridad.es
- channelbiz.es
- acens.TV (video)

Agyle (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyjan Carlos De Azevedo[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Online[edit]

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

Absolutely no claim to notability; it's a degree course at a university, and that's it. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. delete --Ysangkok (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single course at a single university. I see nothing worth noting here. Perhaps if a number of notable people had studied here, but that does not seem to be the case. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as advertising and copyright violation. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Hasan (Artist)[edit]

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

BLPPROD contested over arguably reliable source. Non-notable artist, fails WP:ARTIST. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from the artist's blog and LinkedIn profile. Also blatant advertising. Tagged for G12 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breathometer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources link to product reviews and fundraising reports. Not notable by any means. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also include that the previous AfD referenced these sources to make it notable. For instance the PC Mag article is a quasi product review on a product that was still being crowdsourced at the time. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources satisfy notability in that they are significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. They go beyond blogs and press releases and the manufacturer's website, which are all we get for some spamvertisement- type articles which should, in fact,be deleted as nonnotable.. It was an innovative product, in that it was the first miniature breathalyzer which could be plugged into a smartphone with an app to test for alcohol level, with other features such as calling a cab to the user's location The references which lead to a "Keep" in the previous AFD should not be dismissed on the grounds that they are mere product reviews. What's wrong with product reviews? Nor should coverage of its funding be dismissed. It is coverage. The sources included CBS news and PCMag. Additionally, the LA Times had a long article or review: [16]. One could have also asked if it fails WP:NOTNEWS, since in the previous AFD all the stories amounted to a splash of news coverage over a couple of weeks in March-April 2013. In fact, there is continuing coverage, with KRON-TV in December 2013: [17] and Popular Mechanics, as linked from the Sacramento Bee January 2014:[18]. News editors of reputable mainstream media find it to be worth noting in detail, and it is thus notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. If the tone of the article sounds promotional, then it needs editing, not deleting.Edison (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All it takes to establish notability is multiple reliable independent secondary sources focusing on the subject. I'm satisfied that the Techcrunch and CBS articles clear that hurdle and saw no reason to look further. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and passes WP:GNG. Source examples:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 7 February 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 Watson's Personal Care Stores. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watson's (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

The introduction reads like a duplicate of Watson's Personal Care Stores. The "Retail operations by type" section is written as if it is about the A.S. Watson Group. I think this article can be merged to these two articles and then deleted. Quest for Truth (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per nomination. The only unique content as far as I can see is in the History section (plus the historic pic) that I rewrote in 2011. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The History section can be merged to Watson's Personal Care Stores. It summarises the History section of A.S. Watson Group.--Quest for Truth (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 09:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Quest for Truth (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Quest for Truth (talk) 15:22, 7 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Manuals Development Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find video game sources: "Precision Manuals Development Group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Completing on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. I note for the record that the previous debates (July 2008 and Sept 2013) both ended in No Consensus results. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale: After deleting the unreliable source (AVsim), and removing another which only had passing coverage (Salon), this article is left with only what I would consider to be TWO RS's - PC Pilot (though it itself doesn't have an article despite being the largest PC air simulation circulation), and the WSJ. Doesn't pass WP:GNG in my view. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Two sources -- [19] and [20], both not having the company as the focus. The coverage in the first one is good to supplement GNG and second provides a mention. I can't find any extra coverage. And I don't see how this yet passes WP:GNG/WP:CORP with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Most of the reliable sources review their games including awards [21], but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Last AfD had basically 1 participant and first AfD mostly presented sources for products' reviews rather than for the company itself. (While I personally feel many companies should have additional notability criteria if their products are highly reviewed/acclaimed, this is currently not in any guidelines.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the company may not have been the primary subject of reliable sources, its products have. Like the Kalypso Media AFD, I think it's better that readers are served with a list of their products rather than a blank. - hahnch e n 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, that's the best you can do for significant coverage? Fully 98% of those links are from ONE source, while another is an online store. That doesn't establish notability in my book. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are from one source because the search was targeted to one source. Here's a similar search across the flightsim.com domain [22] - hahnch e n 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stretch, because WP:USERG clearly states that webforums (of which FlighSim has) are not acceptable as sources. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Umm... Sorry Google says otherwise, it's notable enough for me and WP:GNG is not even a problem for me.AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is extremely weak, and there is no mainstream coverage. Thousands of Ghits from mostly one source doesn't pass GNG in my book. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was a close call, but ultimately, this fails Wikipedia:CORP. I deleted one reference from the article because it was a 404 (and in any case, linked back to the company's own web site). The PC Pilot references talk about specific products, not the company itself, and are perfunctory listings anyway. The Salon reference only mentions the company in passing. That leaves us with the Wall Street Journal article, which certainly meets at least some of the requirements of Wikipedia:CORP. The WSJ piece is primarily about the company, goes into depth, and is obviously in a respected mainstream publication. The problem is, it's just one source, and Wikipedia:CORP says, A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Find us one more reference of similar quality to the WSJ article, and this is a keeper. But, lacking that, it doesn't meet the bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote for keep above acknowledges that the sources address the products and not the company, it was keep nonetheless because the content of the article could just be moved to List of PMDG products, which was similarly suggested at the Kalypso Media AFD. - hahnch e n 16:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually multiple products? I got the impression there is basically one product, which comes in a bunch of model-specific variations. The graphics, controls, flight dynamics, etc, may all differ from model to model, but they're all just airplane plugins for a flight simulator platform. Not that this is critical to this discussion; a single-product company could certainly be notable enough to merit an article, but that notoriety needs to be demonstrated by multiple independent sources, which I don't see. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also trying to figure out how, We could move this to some other title, similar to a suggestion somebody made on another AfD, adds up to an argument for keeping this? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They make digital model airplanes. The links above show you reviews of the different the airplanes they make. The argument works for both articles, because if you recast the content as a list instead of an article, it would fulfil WP:CSC. - hahnch e n 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the WSJ article, here is an in-depth length interview at flightsim.com with the founder that talks about the company and its developers. I consider flightsim.com to be a reliable source. These two sources are enough for marginal notability according to WP:GNG, and other sources, such as IGN's PMDG page listing their products just adds to that. The article could be made a bit less promotional, but that is a matter of editing, not deletion. A marginally notable company and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't fit for WP:GNG. IGN entry is a routine catalog entry (as with any other company they have on record) and isn't suitable for notability at all. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nowhere does WP:GNG mention interviews. WP:PRIMARY does not mention interviews either. Interviews are mentioned in a footnote on that page, where it says "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews;...", so it depends. For the purposes of establishing notability, the context in this case is that an independent reliable source, recognized as an authority in the field, took the effort to interview the company founder and publish it; there is the presumption of basic fact checking. I stand by my assertion that this RS contributes to notability. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Apart from that game, this group has little relevance.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X per Jeff5102. When/if better tertiary sources emerge that better establish notability per WP:CORP the article can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:35, 7 February 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. Sandstein 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of selfvariations[edit]

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

There are no independent references about this theory, so we cannot write a neutral article about it; see Notability. The article lists five references, all by the same author and four of them in 2008. I looked for citations by others on Web of Science and Google Scholar and could not find any. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncited OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements. I think it may also be fringe science, but the lack of notability takes precedence. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons to retain the article Theory of selfvariations

Hello Jitse Niesen and readers of Wikipedia,

There are a number of reasons to retain an independent article about the theory of selfvariations:

1. Parts of it have been presented (after invitation) in the XXI SEAC Conference in Astronomy (September 2013) in order to become known to a wider professional audience. The interest of the conference organizers and participants was strong, as new solutions to existing problems are always wellcome. The topics are covered in the conference's Book of Abstracts (s. Extermal links).

2. The first appearance of the Theory of selfvariations in the media was in a major greek newspapaper on 1 September 2008 (ΕΘΝΟΣ) where it was presented by this name and was favourably commented by professor Xenophon Moussas, head of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (worldwide renown for his work on the Antikythera Mechanism). It has also appeared in a number of other newspapers.

3. A reference of the theory of selfvariations is maintained in the NASA archives, in particular in the The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System

4. The theory is not original research since it has been approved for publishing by the chief editors of 4 different peer reviewed scientific journals. It has been checked by a total of 8 independent academic professional reviewers (standard procedure i.e. 2 for each journal), which approved its contents.

5. The theory has been presented in α university level textbook published by the Hellenic Physical society in 2011 (ISBN 978-960-9457-06-4).

6. The theory explains the cosmological data and agrees with all the latest cosmological meausrements (especially the increased luminosity distance of supernovae and the fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) (presented in detail in the published articles).Aristarchus11 (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)— Aristarchus11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:OR. We do not publish original scholarship and untested theorems. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original scholarship in any sense according to WP:OR, since it relies on three of 'the most reliable sources' as mentioned in WP:OR, peer-reviewed journals, university-level textbooks, mainstream newspapers. It also does not contain any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Contrariwise any statment included in the article can be found in the sources.Aristarchus11 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, appears to be fringe science with little or no independent substantial coverage. Going weak because I concede there may be coverage in the Greek language that I cannot read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If you can find such sources (and I can't) then Google can translate them in a rudimentary fashion. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural authority[edit]

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

Article was created in 2005 by an editor who has not hung around. There was an addition in 2006 and a further addition in 2013 which adds little of meaning. This appears to have started out as an essay, or at least as the start of an essay, and has not progressed. It is unreferenced, an orphan, and of no discernible (to me) purpose. Emeraude (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Emeraude. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is correct, delete this. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced essay. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 11 February 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 Banbury. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 05:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banburyshire[edit]

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

Non-official area with coverage mainly in tourist information. Only 137 unique Google hits (including Wikipedia and YouTube), so fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete or Merge - Not sure that Ghits prove anything much - 3 good ones would likely settle the matter. However, this article has little going for it, especially since it's attempting to make something of the informal designation -- basically it's just a DicDef, the word was loosely used in such a way, once upon a time. On the other hand, if there is a merge target (Informal regions of England or something) then there'd surely be enough notability, given the number of such 'shires'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there are multiple books about it including:

Discovering Banburyshire;
Banburyshire in Old Photographs;
Villages of Banburyshire;
The Pathways of Banburyshire;
Roman Banburyshire;
Over the Hills to Glory: radicalism in Banburyshire 1832-1945

Its status in modern officialdom is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Andrew (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness of the topic is nothing to do with Wikipedia's constitution, bureaucratic or otherwise. The 'books', named already in the article, are unfortunately weak evidence, given their tourism POV and the basically MADEUP nature of the supposed 'shire'. An article on the making-up of pseudo-counties could have merit; the pushing of specific areas for doubtful ends has much less. The Romans, for example, knew nothing whatever of 'Bunburyshire': the title is an absurd piece of notability manufacture (long before Wikipedia). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the one making things up here as there seems to be no basis in policy for sneering at these books. I would characterise them as being about local history myself but their category seems irrelevant to the issue of notability because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so covers all types of topic, not just local government. Note that the existence of Banburyshire as a concept seems reasonably well-recognised in more academic works such as The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship, where it is characterised as a 'small scir'. Andrew (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal accusations. Where books push an author's point of view, especially if there is a hint of commerce such as tourism about it, it is reasonable to doubt their reliability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please produce some evidence to support these insinuations. The books all seem quite satisfactory as sources. Andrew (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your number 1, 2, 3 and 4 are clearly linked to tourism. Your number 5 is likely to be tourism promotion, as in Roman times there was no Banburyshire. The Banner talk 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Source 1 is linked to tourism being published by the Banburyshire Tourism Association. Source 2 is published by Sutton and is not tourism but is instead local history. Source 3 is more local history. Source 4 is not at all clear because it was published in 1900 and its exact contents are not explained online. Source 5 is yet more local history. Source 6 you don't mention - presumably because it is so clearly nothing at all to do with tourism. So, your claim seems to be quite false. And it is quite irrelevant because it doesn't matter exactly why these sources were written - tourism, history, topography, whatever. The point is that we have numerous sources about the region and this demonstrates the notability of the topic. You have yet to produce any policy-based reason to delete this notable topic and seem to be relying upon inaccurate guesswork and prejudice. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge some of the reliably sourced material to Banbury. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This informal term for the area served by the market town of Banbury has a verifiable history of usage back to the 19th century, but what else is there to say about it beyond that that? Nothing, in my view, that isn't better located in another article, most likely the one on Banbury or perhaps History of Banbury. The current lead of Banburyshire says much the same as the last para of the lead of Banbury that already mentions this term (but currently lacks refs, which could be added). Of the 'Location' section, the first para could belong equally well in the Banbury article, while the rest of the section has no reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Banbury. Several books use the term in their title but not worth a standalone article.--Charles (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagyal[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I've been struggling to find reliable sources for this clan over many months, maybe even years. It probably does exist, it probably is a surname but there doesn't appear to be anything reliable out there. Sitush (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources in googol and in google books I only found a passing reference so there's nothing to prove nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find a single source. I searched for all three spells Nagyal, Nangyal and Nangial but zero result for any such tribe. Jethwarp (talk) 14:20, 8 February 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 Dark Is the Way, Light Is a Place. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closer (Anberlin song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A discography entry without any discography! --Richhoncho (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album, Dark Is the Way, Light Is a Place. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 21 January 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, —Darkwind (talk) 03:10, 28 January 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^(talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Is the Way, Light Is a Place, it's album. On current evidence, the song does not pass notability threshold and, per WP:NSONGS, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Schwarzenegger[edit]

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

An editor disagrees with my tagging this for notability. I was on the fence about nominating the article, but given the disagreement, let's have a discussion. She is not notable. Simply having famous parents does not mean you should have an article. She wrote a book, which has gotten coverage, and her book may meet WP:NBOOK. She doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from either her parents or her book. Sources do exist, but like this one, they don't confer notability. Even this source is about her parents as much as its about her. The USA Today source cited in the article is the only one I see that without a doubt is significant coverage of her. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "An editor" was me. I can fully understand why Muboshgu initially took umbrage at the article, it was previously almost entirely about her well-known family, rather than her. I was on the verge of raising an AfD myself (people certainly don't inherit notability from their relatives). However, in my view she meets the notability requirements of WP:NAUTHOR, because her book has been featured/reviewed in at least three reliable, independent news sources, maybe more. She created the book so she does inherit notability from this work. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sionk. Of course any child of a famous person sources will talk about that famous person in whatever they do it can't be avoided. -- GreenC 04:59, 1 February 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^(talk) 08:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination), among others. When a famous relative receives coverage wholly independent of their relation, then an article can be created. A trivial book would never have received a lick of coverage if it wasn't for her last name. This isn't enough, not by a long shot. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I don't like the idea of our celebutante-loving culture, it is what it is. This article meets WP:GNG. There have been reviews of her book. She has appeared on major "news" TV shows to push its sales. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TASIM[edit]

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

Keeping this short: nothing in the article suggests it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Low key governmental imitative that is trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion: <==Follow us== Facebook (facebook.com/tasimnet) Twitter (twitter.com/tasimnet) Youtube (youtu.be/tasimnet) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little notability. Prose style also seems influenced by the CBG[23]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
COmment: I've done a bit of moving about before realizing this was still at AfD. (I registered it briefly when I first deleted it but then chose to restore and move it.) In any case, while there is some serious issues with tone and copyvio, I would prefer that this go through AfD to decide whether or not it passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it definitely uses copyright content in a way that would be infringement if the contributors don't own the content - under the circumstances, however, I think it's plausible they do, so I've left a note about licensing material, and will follow up. Wily D 11:49, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of it is copyright violation. This is like a film. A film isn't notable until the film starts shooting. This is yet another multi-government pipe dream that has been around for 6 years. When the cable is up and running, they do warrant articles. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 7 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hill (author)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Subject does not satisfy any of the four criteria for Creative Professionals and no significant coverage for the general notability guidelines. Prod declined by an IP without explanation. Safiel (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Checking the general references for the article against WG:GNG, it actually does appear to meet those criteria, at least. It also appears that the article could be significantly expanded on the basis of them. I would vote KEEP. BPK (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may be relevant to point out that it appears you are the creator of the article and have a conflict, as per WP:AVOIDCOI. MikeMan67 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am indeed the creator of the article, and should have noted the fact, as it may indeed be deemed relevant by others in deciding how they would like to vote. It doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, however -- merely that my opinion on whether or not to keep the article is predictable. Having been notified of this discussion, I was by implication invited to participate. Participants need not be neutral as to the outcome; in fact, we are expected to have and share our opinions, in order that a consensus on the question at hand be reached. If we are to exclude all interested parties from such discussions, we simply end up with no discussion. I should point out as well that, aside from creating the article, I have had nothing to do with its subsequent editing up until the time this discussion started, when I provided some references. So I don't think it can reasonably be inferred that I have that big an iron in this fire. And even if I did, it's not my opinion that determines the fate of the article, but the consensus. I'm quite okay with that. It's quite possible, even likely, that the argument will not go my way. The minimal level of interest in this issue, as demonstrated by the paucity of participating wikipedians, certainly appears to demonstrate that most folks neither know nor care about it, or whether it lives or dies. BPK (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references given go a long way toward establishing notability, and a bit of searching confirms it. Of course, it needs improving. Some info here, and here. Pretty sure there's enough already for a short article; other sources may not be online due to the dates, but I expect sci-fi fans can dig out more eventually. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 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^(talk) 08:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the votes above will be included with any added here in any final tally, and so feel no need to repreat mine. BPK (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the content area, but the references seem significant enough. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Of the sources currently in the article, I would regard just the existence of the Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry as strongly indicating notability, and the fact that the initials on it indicate that it is by John Clute strengthens this further. Damien Broderick is also enough of an authority on science fiction to be regarded as a reliable source. Usually, I would also say the same for Robert Reginald - but in this case, both sources seem to be based on the same information gathered in the 1970s and not subsequently updated; the information probably came from the subject (though I would expect that Reginald fact-checked it); and I would not be surprised to find that, in this work, Reginald was trying to cover every science fiction writer whose work was being professionally published at the time. But we do have two reliable sources (and the second reference by 2.123.67.6 gives a third, albeit by Broderick with the same co-author as the reference already in the article). Other reliable sources are likely to exist, but may well be decades old and offline (and hence difficult to find). PWilkinson (talk) 20:56, 9 February 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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 05:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ECRHA – Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable list about awards from an obscure collegiate conference in a fringe sport, but no mention of athletic achievement -- the awards are service awards for "Community Recognition," "Logo Contest Winner," "Appreciation Award," and the like. Article is orphaned, and has never had sources, for seven years now. I'd turn it into a redirect, but "ECRHA - Awards" would be rather an implausible search term compared to, say, "ECRHA." Article is the creation of a long-departed SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity revolved around creating articles for this roller hockey association. Ravenswing 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eastern Collegiate Roller Hockey Association. Although the sport may seem fringe to some, it is notable, and so coverage in this encyclopedia is appropriate. I do agree that the awards don't need a separate article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete or merge. There are no references. And they definitely don't need their own article. I could see a case for a merge but not sure that service awards are notable enough to be on the page at all. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 21 January 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^(talk) 01:32, 29 January 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^(talk) 08:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable awards of a lower level league. Of no encyclopaedic value to anyone outside the league. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 9 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana Socialist Party[edit]

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

No evidences on-line, apart from blog and FB page, for a party supposedly created in 2013. (There are 2 google hits for "Guyana Socialist Party", which refers to the Guianese Socialist Party. Soman (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 January 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^(talk) 05:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, seemingly, the article creator is setting up blog sites to function as refs (such as http://www.i-m.co/GeraldJoy/smartguyana/politics.html ), which leads to point to a possible WP:HOAX, --Soman (talk) 02:18, 30 January 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^(talk) 07:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 7 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Clark (actor)[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Only 3 roles JDDJS (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I added a source from BBC One covering his role in River City. It does appear that he has had a prominent and regular role in a major soap opera. But I think that while it moves him closer, it doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR which requires multiple significant roles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; roles to date appear to fall short of satisfying WP:ENT; and I am unable to find significant coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Brodie family#Michael Brodie, the role for which most readers would presumably know him. Gong show 05:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I would hold off on a redirect. While Mr. Clark has not quite made the grade here, it's quite possible he will at some future point merit his own article. I think he is only one significant role away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:34, 13 February 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice[edit]

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

A dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF) that isn't even entirely correct or complete with some largely unrelated ramblings / OR attached. Delete it and move Injustice (disambiguation) to this page, and then prominently link to justice in the opening sentence of the disambig, which covers the actual encyclopedic topic.

Longer version: Someone is probably going to say "Hey, the current article might be bad, but there's a ton of Google hits for the term." Well, yes, it's a word in English, it gets used a bunch, so a terrible quote farm article of "someone mentioned the word injustice somewhere" could be made. However, it makes no sense to treat injustice & justice differently; they are different sides of the same coin. We have the article validity, but invalid is a disambiguation page that points back to validity and validity (statistics). In the same way, everything substantial to say is in the justice article - you want to talk about Legal injustice? See Justice#Theories of sentencing and law. Economic injustice? Justice#Property rights and Justice (economics). Injustice in theology? Justice#Divine command, etc. To the extent that spinoff articles should be made, it should clearly be on subtopics (e.g. Justice (economics) inherently describes both just & unjust outcomes in economics), not on "social injustice & divine injustice lumped together in one article, social justice & divine justice in another article." SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:DICDEF, and replace with the DAB page. Any encyclopaedic content should be covered at Justice, so add that to the DAB page (I actually thought along these lines a few days ago but never got round to nominating, so am happy to support it now).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this satisfies GNG. See, for example, chapter 14, titled "The Concept of Injustice", of the Second Edition of Textbook on Jurisprudence by McCoubrey and White (Blackstone Press Limited, 1996, ISBN 1-85431-582-X). The authors argue, at page 286, that justice and injustice are "distinctly different concepts" which serve different purposes. They devote a twelve page chapter to to "injustice". It contains a further reading section that cites another three books and an article in the Modern Law Review. James500 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) I should point out, by way of analogy, that we have a separate article for Evil, presumably for reasons that are very similar to what I am suggesting (ie to explain the difference between Christianity and Manichean religions in respect of this). James500 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Concept of Injustice by Professor Heinze (Routledge, 2012) another book written from a jurisprudential point of view. James500 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As noted before, the fact that the word "injustice" will get a ton of Google / GBooks / GScholar hits is not under dispute, and these 2 books are surely only the tip of the iceberg. The question is why whatever these & many other books have to offer shouldn't be covered in justice or in appropriate spin-off articles, e.g. "Justice in law" for your two examples. I can't read McCoubrey & White, and it doesn't appear to be used as a major source in the current injustice article anyway, but even if they do say that injustice & justice are totally distinct, there's a metric ton of other sources which confirm the standard dictionary definition: that injustice is defined by the lack or perversion of justice. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that analogous articles come under WP:OTHERSTUFF, i.e. are very rarely a good guide to deletion. And evil is hardly analogous; from antiquity every religion has had something to say about it, with many personifying it or treating it as a very real thing, while its modern secular meaning is far from fixed. But even if it were analogous in deletion discussions each article is considered on its own merits.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to justice. This could be interesting as a collection of trivia, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. As for James500 argument: the article currently doesn't do a very good job of explaining how injustice is a different concept than justice. I'm not convinced the source listed is a prevalent definition of justice. There is a reason this is almost just a stub and has remained so all these years. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This concept and term is clearly so much more than a dictionary definition. Some source examples are listed below, along with descriptions quoted from Gbooks, when available.

The Concept of Injustice. "The Concept of Injustice challenges traditional Western justice theory. Thinkers from Plato and Aristotle through to Kant, Hegel, Marx and Rawls have subordinated the idea of injustice to the idea of justice. Misled by the word’s etymology, political theorists have assumed injustice to be the sheer, logical opposite of justice. Heinze summons ancient and early modern texts, philosophical and literary, with special attention to Shakespeare, to argue that injustice is not primarily the negation, failure or absence of justice. It is the constant product of regimes and norms of justice. Justice is not always the cure for injustice, and is often its cause."
Injustice and Rectification. "This book aims to help answer two questions that Western philosophy has paid relatively little attention to - what is injustice and what does justice require when injustice occurs? ..."
Injustice and Restitution: The Ordinance of Time.
Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. "Throughout the book, Shiffrin emphasizes the social functions of dissent: its role in combating injustice and its place in cultural struggles over the meanings of America..."
Enduring Injustice. "Governments today often apologize for past injustices and scholars increasingly debate the issue, with many calling for apologies and reparations. Others suggest that what matters is victims of injustice today, not injustices in the past. Spinner-Halev argues that the problem facing some peoples is not only the injustice of the past, but that they still suffer from injustice today. They experience what he calls enduring injustices, and it is likely that these will persist without action to address them. The history of these injustices matters, not as a way to assign responsibility or because we need to remember more, but in order to understand the nature of the injustice and to help us think of possible ways to overcome it."
Kant's Theory of Justice. p. 17.
Rethinking Historical Injustice And Reconciliation in Northeast Asia: The Korean Experience. "...Using examples of injustice from the colonial and the Second World War period, the Korean civil War, the current stage of Korean transitional justice and broader regional and global perspectives, the book concludes with a section on forward-looking approaches for arriving at reconciliation in the Asian region. This is a significant book that will be of huge interest to anyone studying East Asian politics, history or society."
Kant's Ethics: the Clavis to an Index: Including Extracts from Several Oriental Sacred Scriptures, and from Certain Greek and Roman Philosophical Writings. pp. 458-459.

– Of course, many more sources that specifically focus upon the concept and term of injustice are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As noted before, injustice is a frequent word in English. This isn't a notability debate, this is "how to cover the concept;" I get millions of GBooks hits on "invalid" and "invalidity," and even throwing out the hits that are related to illness, I could easily generate a similar list of hits to argue that Wikipedia should cover validity & invalidity in two separate articles. But isn't it more meaningful to separate it out by topic, (in)validity in logic & (in)validity in statistics? I'm cheating a bit because no one will argue that invalid isn't perfectly defined by valid - a logical argument can't be simultaneously valid & invalid - but the case of justice / injustice is pretty darn close, if you ask any random person with a dictionary. I don't see much in your above links that doesn't seem like it wouldn't be a reasonable source in a "justice" article or spinoff, e.g. Justice according to Kant. Kant thinks that justice is the mean and injustice is the extremes; is it meaningful to separate those facts into two separate articles with no context? Your proposed solution would be for an Injustice article to say "Kant says injustice occurs at the extremes" and for a Justice article to say "Kant says justice is the mean." That seems a terrible division to me; Kant's thoughts should be in one article, as he himself discusses what exactly he thinks about justice & injustice in the same sentences in his book you linked. To understand one, you must understand the other, for Kant.

Now, the one link of yours that seems on-point for a separate article is the first one, since Heinze is clearly arguing that an act can be simultaneously just & unjust. But - without reading his book - I strongly suspect he's cheating a bit and switching up "meanings" of justice in the middle. e.g. Valjean steals a loaf of bread, and is punished, and this is (legal) justice, but (economic) injustice because the societal system is rigged against the French peasant, or the like. Interesting perhaps, although from the table of contents he appears to be more a literary theorist type and they're notorious for being adversarial to standard terminology to get published and be provocative... but I might not be too adverse to some kind of "Injustice according to Heinze" article if it's truly notable enough. But I'd likely be in favor of that being at Injustice (Heinze) and having the disambiguation page sit at Injustice, because most people are thinking of the standard "reverse of justice", and will find what they're looking for somewhere in the Justice article or category.

To put things on a more productive note, I'm not opposed to expanding articles! If you want to use sources to expand, say, trade justice or social justice or Rawlsian Justice, etc., please, go nuts. It doesn't make any sense at all though to make an "injustice" article that is a quote farm of "here's something someone said about injustice in trade justice, here's something someone said about injustice in social justice, here's a sentence John Rawls said that included the word "injustice." SnowFire (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases where the meaning of a word is itself a notable topic. This case, where there is book length treatment, is likely one of them. My instinct is that a disambiguation page would fail to do justice to this topic. I don't think AfD is a satisfactory forum to discuss this. (The normal procedure for mergers doesn't have a deadline). James500 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most encyclopedic. Widely covered in numerous academic and scholarly secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources found and many others out there do talk about this. It is a notable concept. Dream Focus 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real existing thing. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question has been greatly expanded since this AfD began. I don't think there is any prospect of it being deleted now. I suggest invoking WP:SNOWBALL and closing this AfD as a clear "keep". James500 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By sheer !vote counting, 6:3 is actually a perfectly vanilla AFD result, Snowball is intended more for like 6:1. Also the expansions done by FeydHuxtable - while commendable - do not deal with the fundamental problem an Injustice article has, so I'm not withdrawing my objection - I'm sure people could write articles on just & unjust too (which currently redirect to justice & injustice), but it just doesn't make sense to write separate articles for every single prefix / suffix / synonym / antonym of a term.

Also, I've said so several times already, but since the above Keep votes still appear to be arguing against it: notability was never mentioned. Read my original nomination again, notability is a straw man. Injustice is obviously a hugely notable topic, which is why it's covered in the entire Category:Justice and its many subcategories & subarticles, and why the Justice article itself is still a far more useful link than the new Injustice article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing injustice in the justice articles, and then we're not duplicating material. SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been five keeps in a row. The delete vote and the redirect vote were both based on the poor state the article was formerly in. It does look like this is snowballing. The many sources now cited in the article argue that injustice is not just an antonym and some argue that it is the primary topic (to which Justice should be redirected by that logic). I'm not seeing any duplication. James500 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While this could be a dab page, as it is written it seem to show potential for explaining the concept. I don't think we need to get rid of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whole volumes of jurisprudence have been written about the concept. Several users have noted additional sourcs that can beef up the article. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott P Crowley[edit]

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

This article does not meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO, and more specifically, WP:FILMMAKER. I suspect it was a vanity piece. ColonelHenry (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and sources hugely fail WP:RS. Looks like yet another promotional piece. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An almost unsourced BLP. Subject does seem to have served as assistant director on a concert video for an obscure band. Nowhere near notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 February 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. As painful as it is to delete a long-standing article that someone obviously put a lot of time into, this article unfortunately doesn't comply with WP notability policies. If anyone would like me to restore this article for the purposes of transferring it to another wiki, please let me know. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 05:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities with Thunderbolt sirens[edit]

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

This list includes all known alarm sirens of a couple of models made by one manufacturer and installed in various cities presently or at some time in the past. Wikipedia is not a directory, whether of these sirens, or of, say any other fungible manufactured device in widespread use. It appears to fail the guideline for notability of standalone lists due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the collection as such (besides whether the particular models of siren are themselves notable.) Additionally, it appears to be all or mostly original research, sourced only to user-contributed photos at Photobucket or Youtube videos of the sirens. It is cool to hear the sirens, but this collection of listings and links belongs at a hobbyist website rather than in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable original research. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It pains me to recommend deletion on an article someone obviously worked very hard on. But there is no evidence of notability, no sources and strong reason to suspect original research. And I think it's too large to fold into Thunderbolt Siren. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems good/interesting, not promotional by a manufacturer or anything. The Thunderbolt sirens seem to be a part of Americana, of interest, and some/many still in place. I looked up one town and found it covered, learned something myself. The article could be tagged to be improved / better sourced. Were the creators/developers notified that they should improve the article? Tag and perhaps revisit in a year or two, no rush. --do ncr am 16:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, I notified 2 editors of the article in addition to the creator of the article. "It is interesting" is not found in the guideline for notability . Thousands of types of interchangeable manufactured artifacts such as grain elevators, watertowers, railroad crossing arms, and stoplights could also be collected in similar lists of where some are to be found, would be part of Americana, and might be interesting to those who like to add items to the lists, but would also be likely to fall afoul of WP:NOT. Tagging would not be a solution. The article about the sirens themselves is more interesting and should satisfy the urge to preserve the historicity. That said, the article's contributors certainly did a nice job ion the original research of adding ones they were familiar with. Edison (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty important that the "original research" includes photos that document what is in place. As you know, the use of photos within Wikipedia is a big exception to the general rule against using original research in Wikipedia. If the photos documenting a siren being somewhere were in Wikipedia or Commons, is that so different? But they're being in some other user-contributed sites means they're invalid.? I think the acceptance in several comments here of the probable complete accuracy of information in this list-article is important. Call for providing more specific, normal evidence, yes, but don't delete what seems to be a good, useful, interesting list. --doncram 23:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No such exception for original research exists. Photos are easily misinterpreted. For example, how do we know that the photo of Colona, IL, was actually taken in Colona, or that the siren illustrated in it is a Thunderbolt? Photos are only permitted to illustrate a topic. They can't be used to introduce new information about the topic. Pburka (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the pic is not detailed enough for me to zero in on the writing on the sign in front of the fire station, but what you say about Wikipedia's use of photos is not true in practice. In historic site articles, where most of my contributions are, a photo of a 1980-listed building documents what it looks like from the street, in 2012, obviously conveying "information" to the reader. E.g.: In 2012 it is pretty much the same compared to historic photos also linked from the article, but the Federal-style porch which was part of the justification for its historic nomination is no longer present, in 2012. And, practice includes explicit text commentary, e.g. "In 2012, the house is no longer there." with reference to the photo of the empty lot at the listed address. And, in other areas, it is not contested whether a photo really depicts a given ship or flower or whatever. If the photo at Marigold was not a pic of that flower, someone would probably have contested it. And likewise a photo in a historic site article that stands uncontested becomes more and more obviously a true depiction of that place. About the Colona, IL one, there is a link for any viewer to "Report an error or a problem with this picture". I don't think you seriously doubt that it is a picture in Colona, IL, or whether it is a Thunderbolt type of siren sits on the fire station. --do ncr am 02:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh come on. This page has been here for 5 years and hasn't hurt anybody. The reason that Wikipedia is driving people away is because things like Lists of TV Episodes get automatic notability, but other interesting lists do not. These sirens were the sound of the cold war for millions of Americans who grew up in that era and just because it isn't notable to people who have their face buried in smart phones doesn't mean it should get thrown on the trash. Take your Wikinazism elsewhere and consider using it to make article better and not worse.Sturmovik (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rather agree. It may be pointed out by others that "it is harmless" can be labelled as some supposedly invalid AFD argument, but I simply do agree. Tag to improve, and Keep, is what I say too. Also, the nom states that this info could be at a "hobbyist" website, as if that is bad, when it is not. There are lots of great wikipedia lists that were done first by hobbyists, and that are valid wikipedia topics. I am thinking about lists of covered bridges, and train engines, and cobblestone houses. Being addressed by hobbyists is a suggestive indicator of quality and notability and likely general reader interest. --do ncr am 22:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you propose that the article be improved? There's little chance of reliable sources being found, as the page represents pure original research. Tagging it and waiting for sources to materialize is pointless. If you're aware of sources, or have a compelling argument that sources are likely to exist, then please say so. In the meantime, the author is welcome to move the list to the Cold War Wiki, which doesn't seem to have any obvious prohibitions against original research. Pburka (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, unfortunatly, a wholly non-notable subject. The arguments above are WP:ITSINTERESTING and WP:NOHARM; the fact an article has been here "for five years and hasn't hurt anybody" doesn't make it a valid subject, and being "interesting" does not establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either "it's interesting" or "what's the harm?" are not good rationales for keeping an article. Otherwise my opinion is as User:Ad Orientem. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 00:58, 17 February 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 (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planck star[edit]

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

should be merged with the article for black holes or redirected. Jab843 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am very uncomfortable with PRODing or AfD nominating articles that have barely seen the light of day. This article is less than 24 hrs old. Is there some urgent reason a note could not have been dropped to the creator suggesting some improvements were needed before going for the jugular? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain As the creator of this article, I had seen articles on several science sites about this theory, but there was no wikipedia page. So I created a stub about it, with only basic information, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than I would expand it if it is a valid theory. It's too early to tell whether this will become mainstream science of fizzle out, and I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to know whether this article is notable, so I'll leave the decision to others. Q6637p (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Q6637p. Can I suggest you drop a line to the guys over at WP:AST. They might be able to give some help with it. And if it's not notable they can probably let you know that as well. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to black hole, with no prejudice against recreation in the future if the subject becomes notable in the future. Per WP:FRINGE, although this seems a valid theory (have not read the paper), it is only one scientific paper, with some passing coverage. New scientific theories are common in physics, and each new one does not deserve a wikipedia entry. Martin451 08:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to black hole, per Martin451. Howver, I think it's a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Howe[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I see lots of Google hits (given that this is The Internet and her affiliation with Playboy, unsurprising), but not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Thank you, so much for providing the opportunity to look at this with algorithms that are more appropriate. As you have written you did look at Google for verified sources. A main factor that Google has not been able to address is articles behind newspaper paywalls. That is where many articles of high caliber, caliber so high that people are willing to pay for the service. are located. Throughout much of the UK, the premium news reporting agencies such as The Sun are a perfect example... However, in reading your profile I noticed that it appears you are a man of statistics and quantative research. According to Carla Howe's Klout Score she is rated at a 70 (see Carla Howe at klout.cm. This is pretty substancial. Considering she didn't even correctly link her instagram. As for your above comment about recent interest. A simple look behind the Paywall of one of the leading newspapers in the UK shows otherwise. (See Sun article)

I will be more then happy to go further into Google analytics of how the primary sourcing is creating the secondary sourcing if that needs be. Please state your pleasure. I fully intend in good faith to stand by decision. The fact is that this individual has throughout the last couple of years spiked on Google Analytics to the point in my opinion that this person just like Ashley Alexandra Dupré or Rick Solomon or the scores of other examples of the same equal potential validity have been granted pages...If their is any other quantative research then please feel free to ask for it. Danandrewsreporter (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Danandrewsreporter: the relevant notability guideline is linked above: WP:BIO and associated subsections. Klout, Google analytics, etc are not used on Wikipedia to determine notability; indeed, raw search results are are explicitly not valid per WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. If you are aware of sources meeting the requirements linked above, by all means cite them instead of search results. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you as an administrator reference GOOGLE STATS in your decision above? You literally wasted two hours of my research because I was countering your GOOGLE discussion. If google is irrelevant, then why make note of it and make it part of your argument? This is literally the now 5th contradiction, I have gotten while trying to make my first page. As an administrator who can clearly see this is my first page for you to COUNTER with a discussion using GOOGLE SEARCH AS A REASON NOT TO VALIDATE AS YOU DID ABOVE...then to say Google can't Validate as you do bellow is just frustrating. In fact, as a reporter that frequently covers the White House... see my credentials at http://about.me/knoxcounty after literally leading me on a wild goose chase I am taking this up with your press relations staff... [24] Danandrewsreporter (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)danandrewsreporter[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per GNG and BIO. Sources hugely fail WP:RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs)

Normally I wouldn't care - whether or not a Playboy model is notable is of little interest to me. But I find the tone and arguments of Danandrewsreporter highly suspicious. He claims to be a reporter, so is getting this article into Wikipedia his job? As a reporter, he ought to know that the overwhelming majority of UK news sources are NOT behind paywalls, so where are other sources. One of his sources - The Sun, a Murdoch tabloid which is, indeed, now behind a paywall - is rarely regarded as entirely reliable. And it is a newspaper, not a "premium news reporting agency". The WIkipedia article in question lacks independent reliable sources and those that are used are promotional (and not even used correctly: one is dated "1990-05-26", which happens to be Ms Howe's bith date, not the article's date!). On this basis, delete as promtional spam. Emeraude (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about we userfy and wait for relevant sources to develop? Also, keep in mind this is Danandrewsreporter's first article, and some of this confusion is my fault. I mentioned to him that I thought she was notable, just glancing at the name, without bothering to check and see if there were substantial secondary sources covering her. Upon searching, I'm not finding many reliable sources to support a keep. Bms4880 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails BIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and GNG. This model got one burst of tabloid coverage. I don't see much depth there. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she got three bursts...Thank you for once again writing false and misleading information...I have already begun to write my article and am sure it will go national after speaking with a number of people in my field. (Please see my media credentials at about. me/Knox county.) As for my preliminary correspondences see bellow... I will be highlighting each of your failures and they are multiple... Including the latest misinformation by Gene93k. When I am done, I will be more than happy to email for quotes... If you believe so strongly in what you're writing. But in conclusion, nonstop contradictions, misinformation, even this late in the game once again exemplifies why Wikipedia is not reliable...thank you. If you feel that I in any way write misinformation about you feel free to contact me at andrewsd knoxfocus.com But to be honest, after seeing user Gene93k latest post...and clearly looking at Google Analytics, it strongly appears that this individual clearly has no deep grasp of Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danandrewsreporter (talk • contribs)

Extended content
Jay Walsh [redacted email] 2:30 PM (17 hours ago) to me Dear Dan, Thanks for your email to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation does recognize that editing for the first time, specifically navigating processes like creating a new article, can be challenging for new users. Wikipedia is operated by a passionate community of volunteers, and it's really important to understand the policies and procedures that Wikipedians use to determine what knowledge should be shared in the project. Editors are highly focused on the quality of information, and they carefully scrutinize references and citations and the overall notability of subjects to make sure they are appropriate to be shared in Wikipedia. Even when adhering to those policies, a new editor may find a lot of scrutiny or attention on their first contributions. Some Wikipedians try to really focus on helping first-time Wikipedians, but as a volunteer-driven project there aren't always enough experienced Wikipedians around to help new editors out. Wikipedia is also a free project, which means it is shared under a free license, so no copyrighted material (including images or other text) can be included. Because of that Wikipedians will endeavor to make sure submitted material does not violate copyright. I'm not suggesting you submitted anything that was copyright, but Wikipedians will want to be totally sure that material is safe to use on the project, and if they don't see definite proof they may delete material to keep the project safe from legal threats by copyright holders. In answer to your primary question, the Foundation does appreciate that the social and technical knowledge necessary to edit Wikipedia makes it pretty challenging for newcomers to get involved. The core of the Foundation's technical and programmatic work right now is focused on making it easier for new and experienced editors to contribute to Wikipedia. The main project under way to help with that is VisualEditor (you can more about it here, including how to enable the beta tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor). VisualEditor makes it possible to edit Wikipedia without understanding wiki code, which is a major barrier to first time editing. The Foundation is also working on improved tools to help users communicate with each other, and to know when their attention is needed on a discussion or change. The Foundation's engineers and developers are also carefully studying the new experiences of Wikipedians, including experiences like yours. They are looking at simple on-screen cues, improved documentation and help text, and other small features to help new users understand what's happening when others get involved, and the Foundation is trying to find better ways to thank and appreciate people for their contributions. As a new editor there is a good chance you may have your first work reverted or deleted, which isn't a positive experience. The Foundation is studying those situations and trying to develop assisstive technology to help you as a new editor and experienced editors who want to work with you to improve the quality of your contribution. You can read some recent blog posts from that team about their ongoing work: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/12/20/new-draft-feature/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/01/wikipedia-next-generation-discussion-system/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/ Ultimately though its the community of editors who create and develop policies and best practices for the projects, and those are really meant to ensure that the final product - the articles people read - are of the highest quality possible. That means the editorial process takes time, involves a lot of discussion, and may not happen instantaneously. It's a lot like good journalism - editors care very much about the editorial style, writing, use of images etc that collectively make the publication as good as readers expect. I hope that helps - let me know if you have any other specific questions. Jay Walsh (for Wikimedia communications) Forwarded message from Dan Andrews <redacted email> --- From: Dan Andrews <redacted email> To: press@wikimedia.org Subject: Subject to article currently being written Date: 2014-02-07 03:36:04 End forwarded message --- Danandrewsreporter (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)danandrewsreporter[reply]

Extended content

Jay Walsh [redacted email] 2:30 PM (17 hours ago)

to me Dear Dan,

Thanks for your email to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Foundation does recognize that editing for the first time, specifically navigating processes like creating a new article, can be challenging for new users. Wikipedia is operated by a passionate community of volunteers, and it's really important to understand the policies and procedures that Wikipedians use to determine what knowledge should be shared in the project. Editors are highly focused on the quality of information, and they carefully scrutinize references and citations and the overall notability of subjects to make sure they are appropriate to be shared in Wikipedia. Even when adhering to those policies, a new editor may find a lot of scrutiny or attention on their first contributions. Some Wikipedians try to really focus on helping first-time Wikipedians, but as a volunteer-driven project there aren't always enough experienced Wikipedians around to help new editors out.

Wikipedia is also a free project, which means it is shared under a free license, so no copyrighted material (including images or other text) can be included. Because of that Wikipedians will endeavor to make sure submitted material does not violate copyright. I'm not suggesting you submitted anything that was copyright, but Wikipedians will want to be totally sure that material is safe to use on the project, and if they don't see definite proof they may delete material to keep the project safe from legal threats by copyright holders.

In answer to your primary question, the Foundation does appreciate that the social and technical knowledge necessary to edit Wikipedia makes it pretty challenging for newcomers to get involved. The core of the Foundation's technical and programmatic work right now is focused on making it easier for new and experienced editors to contribute to Wikipedia. The main project under way to help with that is VisualEditor (you can more about it here, including how to enable the beta tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor). VisualEditor makes it possible to edit Wikipedia without understanding wiki code, which is a major barrier to first time editing. The Foundation is also working on improved tools to help users communicate with each other, and to know when their attention is needed on a discussion or change.

The Foundation's engineers and developers are also carefully studying the new experiences of Wikipedians, including experiences like yours. They are looking at simple on-screen cues, improved documentation and help text, and other small features to help new users understand what's happening when others get involved, and the Foundation is trying to find better ways to thank and appreciate people for their contributions.

As a new editor there is a good chance you may have your first work reverted or deleted, which isn't a positive experience. The Foundation is studying those situations and trying to develop assisstive technology to help you as a new editor and experienced editors who want to work with you to improve the quality of your contribution.

You can read some recent blog posts from that team about their ongoing work: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/12/20/new-draft-feature/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/01/wikipedia-next-generation-discussion-system/ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/

Ultimately though its the community of editors who create and develop policies and best practices for the projects, and those are really meant to ensure that the final product - the articles people read - are of the highest quality possible. That means the editorial process takes time, involves a lot of discussion, and may not happen instantaneously. It's a lot like good journalism - editors care very much about the editorial style, writing, use of images etc that collectively make the publication as good as readers expect.

I hope that helps - let me know if you have any other specific questions.

Jay Walsh (for Wikimedia communications)

Forwarded message from Dan Andrews <redacted email> ---

From: Dan Andrews <redacted email> To: press@wikimedia.org Subject: Subject to article currently being written Date: 2014-02-07 03:36:04

End forwarded message ---

Danandrewsreporter (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)danandrewsreporter[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.