< 18 March	20 March >

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) 07:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Swordsman and the Big Muggers (1963)[edit]

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

I have done a Google search for this movie, then I did a Google search for this movie, plus the name "Henri Oloma". Nothing relevant showed up. I then searched for just "Henri Oloma". Nothing that supports his notability. Neither him, or the movie show up on IMDB either. No proof of his, or the movie's existence. Definitely not notable. 123chess456 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, none of the actors named return Ghits, and there is the obvious problem of a Hasbro-related film being made decades before the company got involved in the field. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a hoax. Nothing out there whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there at all. I've tagged it as a speedy deletion as a fairly blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 20 March 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) 01:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auroracoin[edit]

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

Hey Wikipedia, so I heard you like altcoin discussions.

This article has the usual concerns as with most of these altcoins, such as possibly not meeting WP:GNG (although this doesn't violate WP:PROMO, so we're going in the right direction). I'm neutral. Citation Needed | Talk 22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that this one definitely meets GNG, as it has been covered by a Wall Street Journal blog, TechCrunch and the International Business Times from a cursory scan of news articles, and has the distinguishing gimmick of being tied to Iceland somehow. That said, the article itself could probably be improved, sourced better and watched for the usual issues with promotional content and original research, but I don't think it warrants deletion at this point. Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to debate closer Please wait until at least March 31, 2014 before closing debate. A large amount of additional reliable source coverage is anticipated around March 25, which should be considered in assessing deletion based on notability. Agyle (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in independent reliable sources clearly has this meeting notability threshold. TheBlueCanoe 21:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - even though I assume good faith I really do not understand the point of the nomination. Even the nominator doesnt seem to think this subject is non-notable/important. We do not put articles up for deletion just to have an improvement discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as it is the first altcoin being rolled out to the entire populus of a country. It also has a high capitalisation.--Penbat (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat, both of those are invalid reasons for keeping an article. "Notability" in this sense refers to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, summarized at WP:GNG. Read WP:AFDFORMAT or see the first two keep votes for examples of what to discuss. Agyle (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG based on multiple sources of significant RS coverage. There have been numerous articles about Auroracoin in independent reliable sources in the past, including major financial publications like The Wallstreet Journal, Forbes, and Bloomberg. As today's "Airdrop" process kicks off, there has been an additional flurry of coverage from dozens of publications. Examples from the past 24 hours include: Ziff Davis Forbes CNBC Voice of Russia Vice News CoinDesk Motherboard Iceland Review Bitcoin Magazine International Business Times UK Gawker and The Guardian. Agyle (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No arguments at all given to support deletion. --Rsmelt (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per secondary sources from Agyle and also because European altcoins should be put better at light such as the VatiCoin one. ONaNcle (talk) 17:04, 25 March 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. Speedy delete, non notable website Jac16888 ^Talk 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foro de Justin Bieber[edit]

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

Incorrect language, translates as a Spanish fan forum for artist Justin Bieber, which I doubt garners necessity for a Wikipedia article ~Helicopter Llama~ 22:04, 19 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dunne[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:50, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery (poet)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has a long-standing controversy over whether the subject is the same person as Andrew Slattery, a screenwriter. There's OTRS input that strongly suggests that the two are separate, but the sources don't make a distinction - or at least searching for sources that do not, reveals them, which may simply be confirmation bias or might be a reflection of someone who is not, in fact, actually notable. Without the screenwriter content, we have an absolutely classic WP:BLP1E. With the screenwriter content we have more than that, but it's far from clear whether that is correct or not. The lack of any substantial independent biographical coverage discussing the confusion (or lack of it) is symptomatic of the fact that the majority of sources that mention the poet, do so in the context of the plagiarism claim.

In the end it's my view that we don't have good enough sources to be sure of the content, beyond the one event, which per WP:BLP1E should therefore be covered as an event not as a biography. I support a move and refactoring, but I would like a solid consensus behind this one way or the other because it's a recurrent source of complaints to OTRS. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistence is commendable, but you had a chance to understand that there is consensus for keep, and it is not clear why you are wasting our time. Speedy keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

difficult - this page has been a long term problem, the edits pushing for its inclusion on wikipedia until the plagiarism story, after which time there has been a heap of obfuscation. I tend to think this was notable enough to veer into keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable. Article is accurate and fully sourced. Since the controversy, the subject of the article has aggressively modified their entire web presence to attempt to manufacture the myth that the poet involved in the scandal is not the person wanting to go forward as a screenwriter. But anyone with the ability to drive the Internet Archive (and previously Google cache) can easily find years of "poet and screenwriter" self-promotion. You can also find the same in the deleted revisions of Andrew Slattery (now a dab page).[1] Also I have screenshots. The subject of the article is now abusing OTRS to try to dupe Wikipedia; unfortunately some OTRS operatives have been duped, and seem to think that their sekret OTRS emails trump reliable sources. "It's a recurrent source of complaints to OTRS" is not a valid reason to delete — it boils down to "We should delete this article because the subject is a pain in the backside who keeps making work for me." Hesperian 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be quite the effort to keep this, but we're not in the schadenfreude business, we're an encyclopedia. Our policies state quite clearly that we must source all material in biographies, that we should not create biographies based on a single negative or positive event in the person's life, and that we should not engage in original research or synthesis. All of these are true in this case unfortunately. This article should not exist in its present form, because there is no reliable way to tie one Slattery to another, no matter how much we try. And thus we're left with a BLP1E. If the subject has been effective in covering up his footprints then that's the way it is. There is no single reliable source that says "Andrew Slattery, who used to be a poet and got caught plagiarizing material, is now a screenwriter" If we can't stop edit warring over the separation of the two, then the article should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is no difficulty showing that Andrew Slattery is both a screenwriter and poet - when the plagiarism allegations arose, the media described him as both, and the media from 2007 has been describing him as both from his early coverage. So I don't see a problem on that score. However, I'm not currently sure that his work as a screenwriter and poet is enough to get him over the line, so BLP1E might apply. The awards did not seem to me to be very significant, but others may view them differently. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon FreeRangeFrog, but your "there is no reliable way to tie one Slattery to another" comment is framing a false narrative. The article makes no attempt to tie two people together. The article does not assert your strawman "Andrew Slattery, who used to be a poet and got caught plagiarizing material, is now a screenwriter". The article has no need to make out such a case. The article is about one person, and reports what reliable sources have said about that one person. Reliable sources say that the subject of our article is "[a] poet and screenwriter from Newcastle", so we've reported that. Hesperian 05:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is now the need to unequivocally tie these two people together, that's the burden that the person writing to OTRS imposes on us. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to the (hypothetical) extent that simply saying that a person is a screenwriter can be construed as tying together two putative people, we can be unequivocal about it: we have reliable sources that explicitly say that the person is a screenwriter. Surely "the burden that the person writing to OTRS imposes on us" cannot be so heavy that it cannot be carried by WP:RS? Abstracting away from this specific case, are you saying that an OTRS complaint can trump reliable sources? That all a person has to do is whinge to OTRS, and we'll proceed as if the complainant is right and our reliable sources are wrong?

Furthermore, if you're going to admit an OTRS complaint as "evidence", then why not admit all the other evidence. Really:

	Evidence that poet and screenwriter are the same person	Evidence that poet and screenwriter are different people
Evidence restricted to reliable sources	Reliable sources state so unequivocably	Nil
All evidence taken into account	Reliable sources state so unequivocably; deleted revisions of Andrew Slattery show long history of self-promotion as such; numerous social media and other self-promotion websites, including the person's webpage, previously stated so, and were all changed post-scandal. This can still be demonstrated using the Wayback Machine, and Hesperian has screenshots.	Someone says so on OTRS

What's your evidentiary standard? Pick a row, then do the math. Hesperian 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that we're conflating two problems. One, the article about the poet is a BLP1E on any good day and should be deleted. Second, whether or not he's the same person as the screenwriter is clearly a BLP issue where we are trying to forcibly join the two together and potentially causing harm to one of them. I'd say we shouldn't have either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, I'm providing evidence that there is only one person, and you simply repeat that there might be two. I guess that's the end of that. No point debating a brick wall. Hesperian 01:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. I agree with Hesperian and Bilby that the man is both a poet and a screenwriter, but I also agree with Bilby and the nominator that BLP1E may apply, and the awards are not sufficiently notable. Without the one event of plagarism, there is nothing that makes this man notable enough for an article, so it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with the above comments, whichever way you slice it, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As I said before - As WP:BLPSOURCES says "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" - as far as I can see the only real source shown is the Susan Wyndham column, which could be easily be described as tabloid journalism. In my view the article is not that great and is one small piece of news of a very minor non-notable person and I easily agree that this is WP:BLP1E Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BLP1E, the available sources are incredibly marginal relative to the connection and I don't see that there's anything particularly encyclopedic about this person's life. Bare desire to carry around a biography that does nothing but taunt someone for allegations of plagiarism is insufficient to support the existence of an article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that source do not clearly indicate the poet is a screen writer shows that neither is notable, whether or not they are the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that sources do not clearly indicate the poet is a screen writer. Hesperian 01:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hassle with deleting the article, but the sources state clearly that he is a poet and a screenwriter. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing he did as a screenwriter is enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. - Bilby (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous afd was kept because of his play in the Australian Baseball league, which no longer satisfies notability requirements since the guidelines were changed. Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Spanneraol, perhaps you could explain in a bit more detail for us non-baseball people. Are you saying that playing in the Australian Baseball League was previous considered to be competition at a high enough level for inclusion but no longer is? Accepting that he was previously notable but now isn't might give some people WP:NOTTEMP concerns. But if the guidelines have changed and the inclusion criteria no longer gives the subject an "automatic pass" then the subject now needs to be judged on WP:GNG instead, which he likely fails. Have I got all that right? Stalwart111 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stalwart, the guidelines changed and he no longer gets an automatic pass for playing in the ABL. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly the article didn't reflect them at the time of nomination. But simply looking at the refs added just now, there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the article is therefore presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article per wp:GNG.Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this would have been a delete when nominated but I now think Epeefleche has brought it up to a keep. The additional references appear to be enough to find notability for a stand-alone article. The player has some college and minor league achievements, although I realize statistics alone are not enough to find notability. Not only does there seem to be sufficient independent, reliable coverage of the player but I note the addition of his playing for a national team (Israel) in the World Baseball Classic. Though the team only played in a qualifying round, there is no distinction according to how far a team progresses in the specific discussion of baseball player notability. Donner60 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The qualifying rounds are just that.. they are to help a team qualify for the tournament they arent actually the tournament itself. Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've never discussed whether or not players in the WBC qualifying rounds count towards "highest level of international competition". Part of me wants to say that yes, they do, since the qualifiers are part of the tournament, just an earlier phase. But as I said, we don't have a consensus on that one way or the other and I could be swayed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note The WBC has 16 teams. By definition, teams that failed to qualify didn't play in the WBC. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment. This one is on the borderline. Many of those sources appear superficially related to Widlansky on the surface. I'll decide later. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the sources are devoted entirely to him or largely to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long list of references has been added, but with the exception of a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, none of them rise above the routine local coverage that just about any amateur or minor league player receives. If a list of references like that is enough to meet GNG, then every minor leaguer and high school all-star would be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles devoted entirely to him. Or largely to him. In what are clearly RSs. Different RSs, from different parts of the country. They go far beyond "one sentence mentions," though of course he has those as well, in media in the US and abroad (his coverage is not limited to one town, or even one country). We are speaking of GNG specifically -- this meets the GNG requirement that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That concept is expanded upon in wp:GNG, and I see nothing there to indicate that these articles devoted to him or largely to him in RSs fail in any manner whatsoever.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - With the exception of a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, the coverage of the subject is all in small-town outlets or associated outlets (MiLB.com). We might as well just skip all of these AfD debates and say that anyone who has played MiLB since around 1980 is notable, since 100% of MiLB players get mentioned in game articles, transactions, and notes. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Epeefleche. Has adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also view the qualifying rounds of the WBC as adequate in its own right. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You think anyone who played for a WBC qualifier team is now presumed notable? That's ridiculous. By definition, a qualifier is NOT part of the WBC. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely clear on this. It's murky. For one thing, it appears that the qualifier games play by WBC Tournament rules--not MLB or other rules--and that to qualify for a qualifier team, you have to meet WBC qualification rules. Murky.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "murky" at all. Olympic qualifiers use Olympic rules. Do you think anyone who tries out for the Olympics should now be granted automatic notability? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic try-outs are not run by the Olympic Committee, on Olympic rules. The WBC qualifiers are run by WBC, on WBC rules. To me, it's murky.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a distinction without a difference. The baseball guidelines mention playing in the WBC. A person that played in a WBC qualifier didn't "play in the WBC" any more than a person who participated in an Olympic qualifier but failed to qualify "played in the Olympics." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied the refernences supplied by epeefleche satisfy the GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess "significant coverage" doesn't mean what it used to mean. Any decent amateur or minor league player, including some Little Leaguers, receives the type of coverage listed on this article. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have 211 edits to your name (4 of them at this AfD), so unless this is not your only account I'm not sure what your basis is for referring to what significant coverage "used to mean." Anyway, GNG describes what is meant by significant coverage, and in our view this meets the GNG test -- that, not whether someone else would qualify whom you would like to see not qualify -- is the test. He has articles devoted to him, and articles largely devoted to him (in addition to the smaller passing references), and they are from papers all around the country, and that's why he meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits I have is irrelevant. That's just an ad hominem to distract from the point I made. As I said earlier, any decent high school player gets the same amount of coverage that Widlansky appears to have gotten when he played in the minors. I'm sure the Pulaski paper is full of articles about local sports stars. Are they notable, too? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Players that satisfy GNG are notable. Irrespective of anything else. You keep on pointing to the "anything else" -- but that is not what GNG focuses on.

Note No, I'm not pointing to "anything else," whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm saying that a one-sentence mention in the Baltimore Sun, plus a few stories and notes in small-town papers like the Pulaski Times, doesn't come close to meeting the "significant coverage" standard of GNG. By your standard, and by those of some other AfD regulars, the best players on every high school baseball, basketball, and football teams would pass GNG, since local papers are always writing about local sports stars. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's what GNG calls for. Plus, the sources are a number of papers, from many different cities, for a player who has played in different cities both in the minor leagues, in Australia, and representing Israel -- I don't see a GNG concern, though I gather you would like GNG to not accept RSs from cities smaller than Baltimore. That's not what GNG says.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's "significant" and I say it's not. There's nothing really "significant" about a minor leaguer being mentioned in that team's local paper, or at MiLB.com, which is essentially a promotional arm of Minor League Baseball on which every single MiLB player gets a bio and gets mentioned. Personally, I don't care if we keep this page or not. I just think AfDs like this are a dumb waste of time, since it's indisputable that every minor league player gets mentioned in local newspapers and at MiLB.com. There's little rhyme or reason to which pages are kept and which are deleted. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note Just to show how inconsistent these AfDs have become, Adam Morrissey's page is also being considered for deletion right now. Morrissey played 10 years of pro baseball, including parts of 4 seasons in Triple A, while Robbie Widlansky (this AfD) played only 7 years of pro ball and parts of two in Triple A. Morrissey's AfD is now 4-0 in favor of deletion, with not even a peep of objection, while Widlansky's page is 4-2 in favor of keeping. It seems highly unlikely that Morrissey, who had a longer career at a higher level, received less coverage than Widlansky. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to leave this as my last comment to you on the subject. You keep on focusing on things other than GNG -- which is all that is important in a GNG discussion. It matters not who played more years in Triple A, etc. -- all the wholly irrelevant things you keep on pointing to (though I will note that this subject played in Australia as well, and on a national team as well, and received international coverage ... while the other fellow's article and AfD reflect a stark absence of GNG coverage). What matters is GNG coverage. If he played punchball, but achieved GNG coverage for it, we would cover him.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. GNG is exactly what I've been talking about. A couple stories in a small-town paper like the Pulaski Times (or whatever it's called), plus ONE SENTENCE in the Baltimore Sun, plus routine coverage at PR outlets like MiLB.com, isn't "significant coverage." I'm sure every person on the Pulaski town council has been featured in the Pulaski paper. Are they all notable, too? What about the stars of the Pulaski High School football and basketball teams? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, it is poor form to edit your own comments after someone has responded to them. Distorts the record. Spanneraol (talk) 01:17, 27 March 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) buff bills 7701 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hameeduddin[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician Onel5969 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician in a minor place with no widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The innate notability of politicians laid out in WP:POLITICIAN applies to office holders at the State or Federal level. Local politicians's have to establish their notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. Most local politicians aren't sufficiently covered by reliable sources. There are exceptions. Sorry nominator, I think a closer compliance to the advice of WP:BEFORE would have shown you that Mr Hameeduddin is an exception. We have PBS Newshour choosing to call for him to appear on-air to offer his opinion. We have sholars from Australia, half a world away, quoting him while comparing American and Australian attitudes. This doesn't happen to ordinary mayors. So please, pay more attention to BEFORE, next time, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Valerie Elverton Dixon (2012). Just Peace Theory Book One: Spiritual Morality, Radical Love, and the Public Conversation. iUniverse. ISBN 9781475952629. Retrieved 2014-03-21. New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, a former congressmember, appeared on the August 16 edition of PBS Newshour along with Teaneck, New Jersey Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin to discuss the mosque and community center.
- Jacqui Ewart; Halim Rane (2013). "The framing of 9/11 and Australian television's framing of the tenth anniversary" (PDF). Communications, Politics and Culture. p. 13. Retrieved 2014-03-21. The story was framed so as to elicit some degree of identification, sympathy and understanding from audiences. In this regard, Teaneck, New Jersey, Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin (a Muslim) was featured stating:
- Marc Schneier, Imam Shamsi Ali, Bill Clinton, Samuel G. Freedman (2013). Sons of Abraham: A Candid Conversation about the Issues That Divide and Unite Jews and Muslims. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807033081. Retrieved 2014-03-21. We have two muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana. In Teaneck, New Jersey there is a Muslim mayor and an Orthodox Jewish vice mayor, Adam Gussein, who have been friends for many years. k((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Anne Norton (2013). On the Muslim Question. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691157047. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- Gwen Ifill (2010-08-19). "An Unplanned Aberration: A peek behind the curtain at the PBS NewsHour". PBS Newshour. Retrieved 2014-03-21. The second guest was Mohammed Hameeduddin, the mayor of Teaneck, New Jersey. A Democrat and a Muslim, he actually attended the Ramadan dinner where the President made his first remarks. He, too, had been quoted on the topic and was supportive of the President and the project.
Delete. Sorry, but mayor is a "local office", and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN "who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." It says nothing of exceptions regarding this qualification. That would have been covered in the second item, "received significant press coverage", which is clearly not the case in this minor official. The amount of press this person has been given is less than other non-notable local politicians who have been deleted. In fact, he fails to meet all 4 criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2014 March 21‎
- The third numbered point in WP:POLITICIAN says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."

I think I understand where your confusion stems from. On your user talk page you explained that you thought we should discount all coverage that was based on "the accident of his ethnicity". I asserted that we can't treat his ethnicity and religion as beneath notice when verifiable, authoritative reliable sources specifically single him out for coverage based on his ethnicity and religion.

Gwen Ifill is respected enough that she moderated a candidates' debate during a recent US Presidential election. She is highly respected. When she searches the US for a prominent articulate individual to represent the muslim point of view during a discussion of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, her choice of Hameeduddin confers a strong measure of notability on him. Her reference is one of the references that establish his religion is a factor that helps establish enough notability for a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page, A person's ethnicity and religion, in and by themselves, for any human being are not trivial to that human being, but on the grand scale of things are inherently trivial, due to scale. Never said that it was not worthy of mention. Only said that when this is the only measure to a person's significance, it in and of itself does not merit qualifying that politician as notable. And that is truly the case in this instance. He was merely asked to comment on existing situation, to which he had contributed nothing. And he was asked SOLELY on the basis of his ethnicity. The fact that a person is quoted from a single event by multiple sources does not make them notable, again, per wiki guidelines. At best, that would rate a mention of him in an article relating to that topic, not a separate article. Onel5969 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only partially correct. A non-notable person's religion and ethnicity won't make them notable, even if they were to appoint themselves the pope of a new religion, and devote every waking moment to it. Their religion becomes a notable factor when that is why reliable, authoritative, verifiable sources seek them out for interviews, for profiles, or use them as examples, or otherwise cover them.

Hameeduddin's opinion was sought out, while the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other muslims were not sought out, because the multiple journalists and scholars who quoted him, or noted him, or asked to interview him reached their own conclusion that his opinion held value. Various things establish notability factors. For WP:ACADEMICS and other professionals, the recognition of one's professional peers helps establish notability. For just about anybody, having journalists specifically seek you out, because they value your opinion, establishes notability, just as the recognition of one's peers does for academics and professional.

The comments, immediately above wrongly imply that all quotes of Hameeduddin date to one event, a claim at odds with the actual references, which are spread over a variety of dates. Vijay Prashad, for instance, praises Hameeduddin for his leadership in guiding Teaneck city council to pass a "a far-sighted anti-bias resolution". Most city council resolutions of cities of 40,000 citizens aren't notable, and guiding those non-notable resolutions through council, doesn't make a local politician notable. But coverage of the resolution and the politician's leadership, in reliable sources, adds to the notability of both the resolution and the politician.

Vijay Prashad. "Uncle Swamy". Harper Collins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350299067. Retrieved 2014-03-21. In the summer for the tenth anniversary of 9/11, SAALT conducted an 'America for All of Us' campaign that resulted in the passage in Teaneck, New Jersey, of a far-sighted anti-bias resolution by the city council, under the leadership of its mayor, Mohammed Hameeduddin.

No offense, but if the nominator really means to suggest that an individual's religion or ethnicity, and coverage of that religion or ethnicity in reliable sources, can never help establish notability, I am afraid that this would strike me as an unfortunate lapse from the advice in the widely admired essay WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions commonly shortcuted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a quote from WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians:

"Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a municipal government, or (b) have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue or for breaking the law, are also often found to be sufficiently notable."

Hameeduddin is not the USA's first muslim mayor, but muslim mayors haven't been that common. I don't think there is any question that he did act "as a spokesperson on a major political issue". Nominator seems to be asserting serving as a spokesperson confers no notability -- an interpretation at odds with the advice in the common outcomes wikidocument. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but you should really let the statements I make speak for themselves, I'll repeat it: Ethnicity, sex, orientation, religion, etc., in and of themselves, do not denote notability. Your last point, is definitely valid. However, this politician potentially does not meet that standard. The mayors in Teaneck are not "elected", but are selected from among the 7 council members. There is no mention whether or not he was the first Muslim on the council. In addition, I don't think every "first" across the nation incurs notability of the standards put forth under wiki guidelines. If so, where's the wiki page for Lucille Steiner (first woman mayor of Teaneck)? And if serving as a spokesperson denotes notability, then we need like another 10 or 20 thousand entries on Wikipedia for every police chief/sgt/lt/officer and every fire marshal/chief, etc. who has ever stood as spokesperson on a single incident on a single issue. Speaking on the behalf of a single incident does not in and of itself rise to the level of notability. It would be one thing, if after his initial interview, there were follow up instances, but, according to the wiki article, I see no evidence of this.Onel5969 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept, at face value, that it is not your intention to advance a series of strawman arguments. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is what you are doing here.
First, no one has ever claimed that "Ethnicity, sex, orientation, religion, etc., in and of themselves, confer notability." What I have asserted was that when journalist and scholars choose to single somebody out, this is a factor that adds towards their notability. In Hameeduddin's case it is his religion and ethnicity, and his ability to defend them in an articulate manner, combined with his public prominence as a municipal official, that made them single him out. On your talk page you called this "an accident", and seem to assert their decision ot single him out should be ignored becaus they did so based on the "accident" of his ethnicity/religion. It is not my role, your role, or anyone else's role to set our judgement above that of verifiable, authoritative reliable sources. You simply cannot claim we should ingore reliable sources because you disagree with them, and I am afraid this is what it looks like this is what you are trying to do.
Second, you advanced the straw man argument that my arguments implied we would need "entries on Wikipedia for every police chief/sgt/lt/officer and every fire marshal/chief, etc. who has ever stood as spokesperson on a single incident on a single issue." Really, using strawman arguments is a real waste of everyone's time.

Only a few individuals have their notability established by a single event, a single factor. Most of those individual whose notability was established by a single event had that notability established through a special purpose notability guideline, like WP:ACADEMIC.

Almost all notable individuals have their notability established by a sensible tallying up of all the factors that conferred notability. The sergeants and lieutenants you mentioned, who are chosen to stand up and read a press release? They are more notable than the police constables, sergeants and lieutenants who weren't chosen to read a press release. If the police officer who read the press release was already of borderline notability, the small measure of notability of reading a single press release might add enough further notability to push them over the boundary -- because being chosen to read that press release is a measure of the regard their superiors hold for them.

But please don't tell me you can't recognize the difference between reading a press release before local reporters, where you don't have speak on your feet, with being chosen to appear on a national TV show, where one does have to speak on one's feet.

You wrote: "It would be one thing, if after his initial interview, there were follow up instances, but, according to the wiki article, I see no evidence of this." I remind you of my very first point. WP:BEFORE! WP:BEFORE! WP:BEFORE! Do you really not understand that other contributors think you have an obligation under WP:BEFORE to do your own web searches, prior to nominating an article for deletion?

Are you saying you think additional television or print interviews would make you change your mind? Because if you had complied with your obligations under WP:BEFORE you would already be aware of other interviews. You have mentioned you are very familiar with Teaneck. Is it possible your familiarity with Teaneck lead you to skip complying with WP:BEFORE, and due to skipping complying with WP:BEFORE you are simply oblivious to the factors that establish his notability? Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Geo Swan, I believe that the subject did act as "as a spokesperson on a major political issue" meeting point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. The numerous references described in this AfD and on the subject article point to his role as a spokesperson. Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One being a sitting mayor of a city of about 40,000 should be sufficient for a Politician low bar pass. For those of you being picky about "local office" blah blah blah, the fact that this subject has significant NEW YORK TIMES COVERAGE should swing things a bit, should it not? No? How about LOS ANGELES TIMES COVERAGE? Is that better? One can fight all day about whether this subject meets WP:POLITICIAN; the fact is, it's a clear and easy GNG pass, which renders that debate moot. A significant public figure beyond his actual office, due to religion and ethnicity. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one didn't take long to assess at all. The subject was the mayor of a medium-sized town in New Jersey and was also embroiled in some controversey in the news. This passes WP:GNG without a doubt. While the other points such as politician notability are also relevant, if the subject at least made it past the GNG hump it seems that would be enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Renton[edit]

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

Not sure what this person's claim to notability is - the article is entirely cited to webpages authored by him. As a political activist he's written a number of books, but I cannot see multiple reviews of any of them - when there is an occasional review it is in a Social Workers Party publication such as the International Socialism Journal. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Sionk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he shouldn't be confused with David Renton, who is deceased and meets WP:POLITICIAN. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He might just about qualify for notability as a historian, but I find that his woek is in the catalogue of very few university libraries (according to COPAC). My view is thus that he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR multiple book reviews: Luso-Brazilian Review, Labour History Review, Labor History Review, Canadian Journal of History, American Historical Review, History Today, Oral History, English Historical Review, African Affairs, African Studies Review. -- GreenC 14:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You found a website that tells you all the reviews someone has gotten. Rather useful. This author is clearly notable based on the reviews gotten for their work. Dream Focus 09:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "ebsco" any Google search eg: "Dave Renton" ebsco .. Ebsco is one of the largest commercial databases it's pretty useful. -- GreenC 14:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability will eventually be met if the person keeps on working, why force it now? Jordanee155 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is met by meeting the WP:GNG or a subject specific guideline such as WP:AUTHOR, which this person clearly meets. Dream Focus 18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews listed by Green Cardamom are enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. (But although the nomination has been withdrawn, there are other delete !votes so the AfD should not be closed early.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 26 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Fuchs[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, does not meet WP:Academic. Article was prodded in August 2013 for that reason, now recreated by yet another WP:COI editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete and salt. Very few GS cites found in a highly cited area. I can't find much else. The BLP is over-promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Google scholar citation counts are 12, 4, ..., well below the standard of WP:PROF#C1 for a high-citation field. And I see no evidence of passing any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Hutchinson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 March 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. Even the keep vote acknowledges that the sourcing isn't there right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Frazier[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. Article relies purely on one source (a GRG table). Filled with original research. Has needed improving since at least 2012 and no reliable sources can be found to support the article. Information that can be salvaged (that isn't OR) is available in other longevity articles. PROD declined by User:Necrothesp because: "deprod; first man to reach verified age of 113 may well be notable". CommanderLinx (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really? The oldest man in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 20 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just living a long time is not notable. It inherently biases us to the near-present when records meet a certain rigor. These people did nothing of note, there is no reason to have articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I favor. but More of Geertruida Draaisma is should be deleted. why Frederick Frazier? You're removed too much a statement of Supercentenarians. This page is one of the most unnecessary article.--Disputed (talk) 14:02, 24 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collection Hits[edit]

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

This is someone's homemade FLAC download, not an album release JoeBrennan (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the nominator is right. I don't see any evidence this actually exists. Nothing on Allmusic even hints at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I could find no evidence of notability whatsoever; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 16:40, 21 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nugent (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Happy to change if it can be sourced that he played for Coventry. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this, if he ever genuinely was on the books of Coventry, he never played a Football League match............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hamilton (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Born in 1964 but played throughout the 1970s? Hmm... Giant Snowman 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Kirby (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Paikin[edit]

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

A Canadian student and son of a television host (Steve Paikin), who is a member of a few clubs, has won a few awards, has written articles for a few publications, and may seek nomination as a candidate in the 2015 federal election. He may merit inclusion in the future, but not now. Mind matrix 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, I admit he is very young. But he is a genius who is going to save the Liberal party like the world in Ender's Game. This Canadian student is already an alumni and a prospective baby-politician who writes and appears with comments and interviews in prestigious magazines, what others in his age don't. Him we owe a good article. He will enrich the Wikipedia biographies' collection! Leave him, don't delete him! --Stonepillar (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIO, which describes the circumstances under which individuals are deemed "notable" enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so predicting that a 22-year old will somehow "save the Liberal party" is anathema to the project. Mind matrix 15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this was a joke. But not a joke is, if you present Nazi advertisement on your personal page.--Stonepillar (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I parody the use of Nazi symbolism, I am not advertising it. Second, the contents of any user's page have no bearing on a deletion discussion about an article; if you have an issue with a user's personal page, raise it at that user's talk page. Third, if your intent was to disparage me, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Fourth, what do you mean by "Of course this was a joke"? The posting of the article, or stating that Paikin will save the party? The point of AfD is to have a serious discussion about the merits of retaining or deleting an article, not to engage in banter and jokes. Mind matrix 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mindmatrix, of course it is a serious matter, to turn an AFD on a good article about an honorous but very young person. Perhaps we must clarify what the minimum age is to present a person to Wiki. The other question is that showing of Nazi symbols and presentation of SS symbols on a Wiki page for whatever purposes is a very serious matter!--Stonepillar (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please read WP:BIO. There is no age limit, only notability guidelines. And once again, what appears on my userpage (which I've already explained) is not germane to this discussion. Mind matrix 17:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stonepillar, you may or may not be aware of this, but just for the record accusations of being a Nazi are a rather frequent feature of Wikipedia which are regularly deployed at anybody who doesn't blindly submit to what the accuser wants — virtually every administrator on here (me and Mindmatrix both included) has been accused of being a Nazi or a fascist many, many times for simply enforcing the rules of the place, and Mindmatrix is parodying that kind of overheated language on his userpage, not "advertising" it. You don't have to like it, and there are other venues where you can take it up for discussion if you have an issue with it — but it is not germane to this discussion, which is about the Zach Paikin article and not about anybody's userpage. Consider yourself advised that you need to drop this line of attack — I'm more than willing to consider putting you on a temporary editblock for violating WP:AGF and WP:DISRUPT if you continue to stray off topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stonepillar, see also the well known and established law of the universe Godwin's law which makes any mention of Nazi's or Hitler almost a guaranteed loosing gambit. -- GreenC 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a candidate in a future election — and given that he withdrew his candidacy this week, he isn't even verifiably that anymore, and all we can do is crystal ball the possibility that he might change his mind again in the future, or run in a different election instead. It's not a question of "minimum age" — a newborn baby can be notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she manages to pass WP:GNG, and a 90-year-old person can be not notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she doesn't — rather, it's a question of minimum sourceable/notable accomplishment. If he actually wins a future election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time, but a person in politics (regardless of their age) has to win election to a notable office (not just run for one) to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Especially if that article is relying primarily on the person's own social media presence for sourcing; Facebook and LinkedIn are not reliable sources for our purposes. We do not "owe" him anything on here, contrary to Stonepillar's assertions above — a person does not get to have an article on here until they can be properly sourced as having accomplished something that gets them past one or more of our notability rules. Having an article on Wikipedia is not an entitlement that anybody automatically gets just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the fellowships listed as justification for Zach Paikin's greatness were unpaid internships arranged for by his father. They did not produce substantive work and were not prestigious. Paikin is hardly a journalist. He has never once been paid for his written work or for his television appearances. He is nothing more than an avid journalism volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.138.55 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how he qualifies as notable under either WP:POLITICIAN or Wikipedia:JOURNALIST. PK T(alk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sufficient notability. Can be adequately covered with a paragraph within his father's bio. Canuckle (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Of course Zach Paikin is a journalist: Only in the past two years he published 51 articles, columns etc. in iPolitics and more than 20 in Huffingtonpost. See also the selection of articles about him in the expanded version about Zach Paikin.--Stonepillar (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already added your !vote above; each editor may only add one !vote, but can make any number of additional comments. Mind matrix 14:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having content published in iPolitics and HuffPo does not, in and of itself, qualify one as a 'journalist'; furthermore, even if it did, that would not in and of itself bestow notability as per Wikipedia criteria. My inclination is to say that the younger Mr Paikin is not yet notable, and that we can revisit this issue in a few years, or earlier if circumstances merit; for now, we can fold this into the article about his father. DS (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVE There is no valid reason for this page to exist. None of the subject's 'accomplishments' are notable whether taken individually or together. Successfully completing a BA, contributing (unpaid) articles, having a famous father, being awarded unimportant prizes from private organizations, or being active in a political party are not notable. Remove the famous father and the publicity-seeking behavior of the subject and this biography could apply to countless young university grads active in a political party (including the subject's two siblings). More to the point, he hasn't run for public office or held ANY important position in either the public or private sector, so basically this biography is about a very successful university student who may, or may not, run for for office in the future and is currently notable for his exceptional ability to command the public spotlight. --Tor editor (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's be serious; this is a run of the mill blogger and Up and coming political activist. He's not notable per WP:GNG, and the trend here has be to be increasingly restrictive, especially about political biographies. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might run for some office next year, in which case he might win. I don't understand enough to even be sure that if he won he would be notable, but he clearly isn't yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak delete. One reliable source - [2] - is a good start, but we need multiple ones for WP:BIO/WP:GNG. If more independent, mainstream sources can be presented, he would meet the threshold for inclusion. Otherwise I'd recommend to userfy it; it's a good start and he may gain sufficient notability to merit an article in a year or two - no point in wasting this good start. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – With a little more research, it turns out the subject does meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. To cite some examples: March 17 article about him from the National Post, January 2012 article with some coverage of him from CBC News, January 2012 coverage of him in Maclean's, January 2012 article about him in The Canadian Jewish News, March 17 article in The Hamilton Spectator, and January 2012 profile in The Globe and Mail. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those aren't substantial coverage of him, but merely mention his name in passing within an article that's substantively about something else — and the Maclean's piece is a blurb so brief that it actually fails to constitute substantive coverage of anything or anyone whatsoever. And even the pieces which are about him in a meaningful enough way to constitute substantive coverage of him still fail to demonstrate that he's accomplished anything that would get him through one of Wikipedia's inclusion gates — every last one of them is about his candidacy for a position that he didn't actually win, but as has been pointed out above merely being a candidate for something, even if you can source it well, is not a sufficient claim of notability on its own. We don't even keep unsuccessful candidates for a party's public leadership role anymore if they're not sufficiently notable for something else besides that, let alone unsuccessful candidates for a role in the party's internal org chart. George Takach was (and still is) just as readily referenceable as Paikin is, for example, but he wasn't sourceable for anything notable enough to get an independent article, because none of the referencing discussed him outside of the specific context of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I get the sense we might have to agree to disagree about this.) It's not required that he be successful. WP:POLITICIAN point #3 specifically points out that "... such people [unelected candidates for political office] can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." The profiles in The Globe and Mail and the Canadian Jewish News, supplemented by a few of the others, would be enough, in my view. Most unsuccessful candidates would not meet notability requirements, but that's because most do not have the national profile that Paikin has. Most unelected candidates do not have Michael Posner writing a Saturday feature article about them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that criterion was meant primarily to accomodate unsuccessful political candidates who've passed another notability guideline, such as having been notable as a writer or an athlete before throwing their hat into the political ring. With isolated exceptions that would require a much greater volume of coverage than this, it wasn't really meant to allow people who have garnered coverage only in the context of their candidacy itself — because local media have an obligation to give "equal time" to candidates in an election, it's always possible to write a sourced article about any candidate in any election (it's just not always possible to write one that demonstrates enough notability.) So interpreting it as "any candidate who gets media coverage at all" wouldn't actually rule any unelected candidates out at all, because all candidates (even the fringiest no-hopers) get some media coverage — but what all candidates don't have is a compelling reason why they would warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note'" - The actual article has been expanded and improved! The author--Stonepillar (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not by much, you didn't. Most of what you did was to simply add sections to the article that consisted solely of comprehensive offsite linklists, an WP:ELNO violation that had to be removed; that's never appropriate Wikipedia content. Offsite links may exist only in footnoted references or the external links section of the article — and even in the latter section, you cannot just add a massive linkfarm; even there, you may add only his own primary website itself and may not compile a comprehensive directory of every individual piece he ever wrote for iPolitics or HuffPo. You didn't add anything that actually constituted any substantive improvement in the article's basic notability claim, however. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't Delete But Improve! is a popular Wiki rule. Hi all! Of course the guy should change his life according your taste and Wiki rules. But you are all free to change or improve the article. It takes a lot of study and research in this "wonder boy" who nearly every day appears in the media. If you have better ideas go deeper with the research about this guy!--Stonepillar (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see good arguments either way, this is a borderline case. Rather than voting based on the guidelines, which I could easily argue on either side, I will IAR and vote based on a personal opinion that this is a topic barely worth keeping for now, and perhaps in a few years if nothing has changed it should be revisited. -- GreenC 14:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You Have No Right To Delete! I've just found a report in National Post about student leader Leo Bureau-Blouin, 20 years young, and what a wonder: he is honored with an article in Wikpedia, even a very poor one, a stub. In this case nobody of you requested deletion. The article about Zach is much more comprehensive and of much more quality! How arbitrate is your interpretation of Wiki-Rules!--Stonepillar (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stonepillar, are you secretly Zach Paikin? If you haven't noticed, Bureau-Blouin won an election and is a member of the NA. He was also a student leader for a prominent organization which had significant involvement in the student protest movement (with significant real-world effects). The fact that another wiki page is a stub is not an argument for keeping this page; it's an argument for expanding the stub. Yes, this page is much more 'comprehensive' but it reiterates the same point over and over while telling us nothing about why the individual is prominent and warrants a page.Tor editor (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The reason that article is retained is because it satisfies the inclusion criteria per WP:POLITICIAN (point 1): "have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". You've become fixated on age, which was not one of my concerns for deleting Paikin's article. (Read my deletion comments again - age was never mentioned.) Mind matrix 22:48, 24 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hr Watches[edit]

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

No indication of notability and no third party sources Elassint ^Hi 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find coverage for this magazine in independent reliable sources; just some press releases and mentions in non-notable blogs. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMAG. Gong show 07:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The magazine doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:Company guidelines. The current page seems to serve as a Yellow-Pages-type of listing. No reliable, independent sources covering the magazine could be found.EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 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) 01:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute in Basic Life Principles[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP as no independent reliable sources that are not supporting Bill Gothard have seriously covered the organization. It is not possible to find the independent, secondary sources necessary to write this article that aren't in religious cahootz with the founder. jps (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has been difficult finding reliable sources (and I have been diligently reverting edits based on unreliable sources), but in the last month there have been a number of neutral reliable sources reporting the circumstances surrounding Gothard's resignation.[3][4][5] Now that he has resigned, of course, he and the organization are not so closely linked. St Anselm (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent secondary sources exist. See e.g. James K. Walker, The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality (pp. 164-5) and a number of other books. There has been news coverage going back decades, e.g. Christianity Today, March 2003. -- 101.117.9.24 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the statistics are anything close to true, this is clearly notable. This contrasts with many one-man-band ministries, which we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukewarmer[edit]

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

Reason for nomination.... Classic poorly-defined WP:Neologism NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what I said in a recent discussion: The article as it currently stands defines the term very narrowly to include only people "who question the scientific opinion on climate change, but not the part of it that says that human CO₂ is the main cause of it--the only part they question is either how much should happen or how bad the consequences will be." This is a particular political stance, that the article goes on to say is exemplified by Matt Ridley, Greg Gutfeld, Anthony Watts, Peter Lilley. Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, Roy W. Spencer, and Mitt Romney. Now, I don't know enough about American politics to know the opinions of many of those people off hand, but I find it very unlikely that we can safely define a neologism ourselves around this mixed group of people, let alone the idea that it is even scientifically literate to question is either how much global warming "should happen" or how bad the consequences of it will be. --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't need to "define it ourselves"--the current definition (which I have changed since you posted the above comment) is clearly supported by some of the citations. And if you have lots of reliable sources that say that lukewarmerism is tantamount to denying scientific evidence, you can and should not only add them, but also change the article to reflect this. Alternatively, we could convert this into a section in Climate change denial if it is really just a form of that. Jinkinson talk to me 15:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment the article claims it means

(A) you agree that human CO2 causes at least 1/2

(B) or instead, without commenting on the cause, you think warming is no big deal,

(C) or instead, that they generally agree with all of it, but downplay it.

There are other flavors of definition that have been reverted (by me mostly). Until one demonstrates "stick" it is a political label looking for a stable meaning. Our platform should not be abused to create that stable meaning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this for the same reasons I gave for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination). It has too many possible definitions. Add in WP:Neologism and that weighs even more heavily towards deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Sailsbystars. This is not yet a ripe term for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary using the template ((Wiktionary redirect)). (Note that I created that page too specifically so I could suggest this.) Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per N&EG above, it is a nonce word that gets freshly (re)defined whenever it is used—and it isn't used very often. Incidentally, Jinkinson's attempt to preserve the entry on Wikipedia by creating an unsourced Wiktionary entry (wikt:Lukewarmer) isn't cool, and is disrespectful of the volunteers over there who will have to tidy up after him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

omg, talk about trust and forumshop issues..... that wiktionary entry was created by jinkinson at 18:59, 19 March 2014‎, after his first three edits to this AFD. I don't know about wiktionary culture. Do we need to do some kind of AFD or cross-ref over there?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. TOAT actually has the gall to say that I don't know how to edit Wiktionary (which is true because I essentially never do this), that I'm just trying to be selfish and don't care about what other people need to do in order to make it compliant with Wiktionary's policies. But of course it's me who's being disrespectful, not him. The real reason I created the Wiktionary page was because I thought that since it clearly isn't notable here, it would be notable there due to their purpose being defining individual words, not giving them an encyclopedic treatment. I think TOAT should apologize to me (and NAEG too for endorsing what he said), but of course I don't expect empathy of any kind from people I've never met and who know nothing about me in real life. BTW, "forum shopping" doesnt apply here because Wiktionary's policies are fundamentally different from our own, and WP:FORUMSHOP itself defines it as "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards." What I did, though was change the issue from is it notable here to is it notable on Wiktionary. Thanks for nothing, everyone. (Also, if someone wants to remove a huge chunk of this because it's "trolling" or something, I apologize, and you should feel free to do so.) Jinkinson talk to me 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyers care about the letter of things like FORUMSHOP. Genuine partners care more about the spirit of things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You don't want this to have a page anywhere, you got it. I would tag the wiktionary page for deletion, but the edit filter won't let me, so I've asked an admin there to delete it. God knows when he'll respond, though. I certainly won't try to create pages on Wiktionary anymore, that's for sure! Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's gone. I hope you're all happy. Now that that's off the table, then, I have become convinced that this page should be deleted because it is too hard to come up with a specific definition. This is because differentRSs define it in very different ways. Jinkinson talk to me 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO - as shown above, there's not really a set definition anyways. ansh666 04:34, 26 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No call, no show[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006 perma-stub for a business jargon phrase with no indication of being a topic notable enough for an article. Source searches certainly don't seem to indicate that it is. — Scott • talk 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable as I've heard it multiple times and seems to me that this is notable as a term that is frequently used in employment.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just a colloquialism for "unexcused absence"; the rest is a somewhat rambling bit about workplace discipline which is surely a fork of some other article. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No refs, no keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and lack of sources. ansh666 04:30, 26 March 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 United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 . With views split right down the middle I think there is room for looking at the wider consensus on political candiates to break the tie. Essentially, the wider consensus is that unelected candidates are notable in the context of the election and I have rarely seen such articles kept unless they are separately notable. Infact. this is almost like a special case of BLP1E. On that basis I think the arguments to redirect to the election are the more firmly grounded in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bevin[edit]

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

Promotional article for primary candidate. He's president of a small family business, a specialized firm that probably does deserve it's WP article--I'm not challenging that. But president of such a firm, especially by someone who has not has a significant role in developing the company, is not notability.

His political role will be sufficient for an article if he wins the election for senate. I am personally of the opinion that if he merely wins the Republican primary he will also be notable, as he would then be a major party candidate in a two party system for a major national office; however, desirable as I think it would be to cover such people, the consensus has generally not been with me unless there is significant additional notability.

But he has not even won the primary. That is the essence of political not-yet-notability, and nobody could rationally suggest that running in a party's primary for the Senate qualifies for coverage in a general encyclopedia.

There are references; there always are. They are either PR, local coverage, routine listing, or trivial intra-party disputes. Or just the report of an endorsement. Every political candidate no matter how trivial the office always gets endorsed by somebody more important, or by some particular ideological group--that is not notability, and only worth including when he does become notable. . DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he's notable as a major primary opponent who has received a significant amount of local and national coverage. His candidacy has receive a significant amount of coverage as one of several Tea Party-inspired challengers to Republican incumbents, and Bevin is particularly notable as the challenger to the Senate Minority Leader. If the issue is the lack of citations to national newspapers, than I'd suggest that people should add those citations rather than proposing deletion (it's certainly easy to Google e.g. "Matt Bevin" "Washington Post" and find plenty of sources). I'd argue that running in a primary is notable when it receives significant media attention from reliable sources; in fact, third factor of Wikipedia's notability policy on politicians allows for exactly that. Additionally, I do think it's relevant that the article has been viewed almost 6000 times in the last 30 days and has been contributed to by numerous editors. Orser67 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 where he's already appropriately mentioned. Discrete search term; restore and develop if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 per Dru of Id. This is a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am basing my comments partly from hearing local news. This candidate has received ongoing independent coverage since announcing, and the announcement has national implications in that the Tea party is willing to take on the Senate Minority Leader. The problem with Courier-Journal links such as this Bluegrass poll is that they become paywalls thirty days after the article is published. But this article starts with a picture of Bevin. If you dig down, you will see that this particular poll shows a Fall Senate race between McConnell-Grimes has Grimes leading by four points, while a Bevin-Grimes race has Grimes leading by five points. IMO, the viewpoint for Wikipedia is that this candidate has received so much attention in this race that his name will still be remembered if he ever decides to do something else, i.e., the threshold of long-term notability has been crossed. United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014, on the other hand, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as well as it would fail WP:SPECTACLE if someone were to write such an essay. In that article we find the words "turtle", "jerk", and "insulting". Redirecting to that article would be a BLP violation. Articles about future events need to be in draftspace, not mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Information is relevant to a person in the news, and will contribute to the history of the contest of ideas within the Republican Party and the conflict between the Tea Party groups and traditional Republican party leaders. Ggallman (talk)
Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 per the usual procedure and WP:POLITICIAN. At the moment he's just a potential candidate who is trailing badly in the polls. If he somehow wins the primary he's pretty much a shoo-in, but I don't see we should throw out long-standing precedent just because someone from the Tea Party decides to throw their hat in a ring. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, he is "trailing badly" in the primary poll, but it doesn't matter if the topic gets ongoing independent coverage. As per the nutshell of WP:N, we consider not standings in a poll, but "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Why do you argue that he is a "shoo-in", when he is trailing, by five points, in the polling for the Fall election? WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should <normally> attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 as per above. I see nothing in the article suggesting that he has any significant notability above being a senatorial candidate, which by long precedent we have held to be insufficient. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that the standard DGG is applying - that notability should be conferred after a primary win - is appropriate in this case. First, Bevin is challenging the majority leader, not just any Senator, and at a time when the majority leader is unpopular and vulnerable. That means that this senate seat election has received a lot of press coverage. Second, over the past few years, tea party challengers have been much more of a factor in elections than primary candidates have been historically. In several cases (Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Richard Mourdock) tea party challengers have defeated sitting senators in primaries. Bevin may lose - press reports describe the campaign as "fizzling" - but there is still a lot of press attention nationally on Bevin's candidacy. That indicates sufficient notability for an article.GabrielF (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large amount of mass media attention, as outlined above. Neutrality^talk 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why we can justify an article on the election, but not on the person. We have held for a long time that candidates do not inherit notability from the contest, especially in cases where the candidate isn't a politician. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is also significant coverage on the man personally. Neutrality^talk 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The candidacy is getting attention. People are attending to the idea of a newcomer who can take on a leading figure in his own party and really mean it. The proof is in the polling that shows that Bevin relative to McConnell only trails by one point in the Fall election. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 as per above. I don't see that he has any significant notability on his own and this is clearly promotional. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 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) 01:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Force Championship[edit]

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

No significant coverage--everything is either fight results or material announcing upcoming events. Focus seems to be on amateur MMA and that's not usually considered notable at all.Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote--see my comment below.Mdtemp (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I found lots of videos, but very little print coverage about this organization and nothing significant and independent. The article states that it's for amateur MMA fighters and amateur MMA is generally considered "not notable". It seems like this could be in a good position to be notable, but I need to see better sources than fight promotion and results. Papaursa (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been significantly improved and I think it now has the sources to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these are reliable and notable sources. [6] [7] Dwanyewest (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article, particularly the sources, has been greatly improved since I first nominated this article.Mdtemp (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. (all). I rounded the redirects to just "merge," since that's what a post-merged article will turn them into anyway (while retaining the page history, which can be important for licensing). Consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much of the content is to be integrated (if any), but as it stands it would seem that the consensus is against these having standalone articles unless they can meet the general notability guideline. slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be Safe[edit]

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

This is a group nomination for all one-page Calr Barks Disney comics that so far have recieved an article. They are all adequately covered in List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (which shows the potential for further similar articles as well).

None of these subjects has sufficient notability, as they have not received considerable attention as a separate subject in reliable, independent sources.

They have been reprinted (in English, and in Disney magazines and books in many languages), but apart from being noted in comics databases, they are not the subject of the necessary coverage. E.g. a book like Carl Barks and the Disney Comic Book pays no attention to any of these.

I have not included articles on longer stories, since these should be considered on their own merits, and some of those have clear notability. This AfD also doesn't mean that if some one-pager did have a claim to notability (e.g. A Hole in One (comics) being the very first Carl Barks DD comic), it can't be created. But for these now nominated, and most sim!ilar redlinks, I don't think there is a future on Wikipedia (or at most a redirect to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks).

Also nominated are:

Best Laid Plans (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Genuine Article (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jumping to Conclusions (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The True Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ornaments on the Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coffee for Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is the only one to have more info, some analysis taken from a reprint book; not sufficient in my view)
Hospitality Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
McDuck Takes a Dive (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fram (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Barks is a major American satirist. His notability has been established. All his works are therefore notable according to WP policy and guidelines about Notability Books.

The gag stories have been reliably sourced to a third party with commentary and analysis written by published comics scholars.

WP does not ask for multiple sources to establish notability, one is enough. Anyone can contribute additional sources to these articles. I don't own them.

I am appalled that WP would consider deleting articles about the work of a major American satirist. Please read the WP policy and guideline about WP:Notability. Doduf (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do have sufficient notability. They have been covered and commented upon by comics scholars in reliable, independent sources. Doduf (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have the necessary and sufficient coverage. Because they are not mentioned in one book does not mean they are not notable. Doduf (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "third party" being short commentary inside a reprint book, hardly an independent source, and not really significant coverage either. Of course, in most cases not a lot can be said about these comics, which may be the work of a major American satirists but are hardly in themselves major satirical works. Oh, and have you really read the guideline WP:N? "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So contrary to what you claim, WP does generally ask for for multiple sources and doesn't consider one to be enough. The source you e.g. now added to Sory to be Safe can hardly be seen as the "depth of coverage" that would remove the need for multiple sources, even ignoring its debatable independent status. Fram (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check WP:Notability on "significant coverage". It is not widespread, in depth coverage provided by an exclusive circle of academecians. From the GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." While WP expects multiple sources (to avoid charges of plagiarism), it does not require them. If WP did, there are thousands upon thousands of articles at WP that would need to be deleted. Doduf (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While WP expects multiple sources, it does not require them for publication. These notes in the book are similar to notes at the back of a classic. There is no policy excluding the use of such commentary. Fantagraphics is a reliable source. Doduf (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I missed this, but there has been an AFD for one of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two, with the closing statement "The result was no consensus, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" (and no prejudice against a speedy renomination then added). The only change to the article since then was this. Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was up for deletion, but there were only two responses and both were from Toronto I believe. The "Coffee" article adheres to WP policy and guidelines. "Coffee" is probably as close to complete as possible at this time. Barks died in 2000. Scholars are just getting around to commenting on his work. I invite anyone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source. Doduf (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not argued that Fantagraphics is not a reliable source, obviously. I have argued that a Fantagraphics reprint edition is not an independent source. Fram (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe a lot of the essays in the Barks Library books are reprints from non-Fantagraphics sources (they're all by different writers((subst:emdasah))it's not one person annotating the stories), so in this case I think the Fantagraphics books count as an independent source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the List of Disney comics by Carl Barks (if needed) and for those without disambiguation, keep as redirects as valid search terms. Nowhere near complete sourcing to support per GNG. The claim that because Banks died in 2000 and sources will come soon both violates WP:CRYSTAL and that 13 years out we haven't seen anything strongly hints nothing much is forthcoming. Doduf's claims about what notability guidelines allow for are are very much mistaken, as GNG requires significant coverage in independent and secondary sources, none of which these articles meet presently. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You need to read WP:Notability. These articles do meet significant coverage in secondary sources. Doduf (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've written parts of WP:N, I know exactly what it means. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked over these articles before and don't see any possibility of independent notability for any of these one-pagers. Aside from Coffee for Two, the articles themselves are basically just a plot summary and the sort of basic info that fits more conveniently into List of Disney comics by Carl Barks. They aren't even likely search terms; in the unquestionably rare event that someone has the desire to look up one of these individual strips, it's unlikely that they'll think of the strip's exact title. Again, List of Disney comics by Carl Barks is more serviceable in that respect.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Fantagraphics is a reliable source, but not an independent source. What evidence do you have that Fantagraphics is it not an independent source? From WP:Notability: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." What does "significant coverage" mean to you? Here's what it means to WP: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Maybe some people have different ideas about what significant coverage is. Please point me to the WP policy page on this (no essays or opinions). Thanks. {Doduf (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a more appropriate page that consolidates all these. Fantagraphics is a reliable source, that's really no the issue, and so much has been written on Barks's stories in various languages, but you really have to think about what makes a good article. The articles on these one-pagers simply aren't good articles. Please think of the readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Barks was writing for children. It was they who spent their dimes on the several Disney titles written by Barks. WP is not kid-friendly, but these articles can easily be read by those for whom Barks was writing. Please, don't bite the children. Doduf (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone really using "Won't someone please think of the children?" as a rationale for not deleting an article? Really? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect/merge/delete. Not all works by notable authors are notable themselves, IMHO "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." from NBOOK applies only to world-famous authors - Shakespeare and such.

Excuse me, Barks is a world famous author/ illustrator on a par with Shakespeare. He is known as the Hans Christian Andersen of comic books and is read around the world. Doduf (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a plenty big Barks fan (I created the Carl Barks Library page) but the notion that Barks had anything like the quality of Shakespeare made me snort my homemade lemon meringue pie out my nose. And world famous? Most English-speaking comics fans (to their shame) dint even recognize the Barks name, let alone the average person.

Most English-speaking comics fans don't recognize the Shakespeare name, let alone the average person. Shakespeare is a nobody in the US. Donald Duck is more famous. Doduf (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, um—yes, yes they do. Every single last one of them. Shakespeare is by far one of the best known names in any language in the world. Every comics fan has heard of Shakespeare. Only a minority of comics fans have ever heard of Barks. Woe be it if you actually believe this tripe you'e spouting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a pop-culture popularity contest. Shakespeare has high school and college level courses taught on his work. Comparing him to a fictional cartoon duck has got to be one of the worst "apples to oranges" comparisons there can be. Incomparable and irrelevant. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- College courses are taught about Carl Barks.^{[citation needed]} Carl Barks and Shakespeare have one thing in common: neither went to college. Doduf (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Whether or not writers went to college is not a criteria for judging the notability on Wikipedia. You really need to concentrate on the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, not these random comparisons and appeals to emotion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, his works have never been translated into Japanese, despite the fact that the Japanese comics market is the largest in the world, and the country is maniacally obsessed with Disney products. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doduf, your interweaving of comments into someone else's post has made this section very, very hard to follow. I had warned and reverted you, so please stop doing this and follow Wikipedia standards in discussions. As for this discussion: you aren't doing yourself any favours by your farfetched comparisons. No one here will be convinced to switch positions by your claims. Many of the people commenting here (and at the Comics project) like the works of Barks and Disney comics in general: I created the article on Le Journal de Mickey, Curly Turkey created the Carl Barks Library article, so it's not as if we don't believe that Barks and his works don't have a place on Wikipedia or that we consider him to be unimportant. But no matter how much I like Barks, or Schulz, or Franquin, or Hergé, I (and most other comics-loving people) don't believe that having an article for every single page they created is wise, wanted or warranted. Fram (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Brooks, while being notable, is hardly "famous" on that level. I certainly would oppose a deletion of List of Disney comics by Carl Barks, but we don't have an excuse to have snippet entries on most of his work. This is why we have the notability requirements. I'd encourage USer:Doduf to consider starting a wikia about Donald Duck comic or such, where we could transwikify the non-notable entries (it's a shame to waste them by deletion; in the meantime I'd also suggest userfication). PS. I've just prodded The Money Well as a sample longer story by him that (in the present article) totally fails to justify why it is encyclopedic enough to be discussed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge/delete - Collectively, I don't oppose, but all separate, there's not enough coverage, or even content really, to warrant a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion on transferring to a wikia. In fact, instead of creating a new wikia (I have no objection to a Donald Duck wikia, but creating a wikia is a lot of work), you could try adding these to the Disney Wikia, which already has some basic coverage of Carl Barks and his comics.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & leave redirects to List of Disney comics by Carl Barks None of the articles bar one are more than plot summaries & publication details, and any discussion of the individual comics is likely to refer to the other ones, so the material would be more accessable if all in one place. This is a good example of one substantial entry being much better than a bunch of stubs.TheLongTone (talk) 21:47, 27 March 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 Regius Professor. It's pretty clear from the arguments that this can't possibly be a delete. So, we're down to whether this is keep or merge to Regius Professor. As far as I can tell, Regius Professor lists all these professorships, some of which are notable enough to also be broken out into their own article. Looking at those that are broken out, some (say, Regius Chair of Law, Glasgow) have fairly extensive histories and some (Regius_Professor_of_Botany_(Aberdeen), are just stubs. It's unclear what the criteria is (or should be) for being broken out into a distinct article.

I'm also mindful of @Necrothesp: 's comment that "the above editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they're actually commenting on", fearing that, not living in the UK, and thus unexposed to the way things work there, I may well be in the same camp.

So, I'm going to call this a merge, with no prejudice for somebody breaking it out again, should there be sufficient material and reliable sources to write a non-stub article about this particular professorship. I would suggest if you want to go that route, try it in draft space first and talk it up on Talk:Regius Professor to gauge consensus.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regius Professor of Computer Science[edit]

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

No indicateion *where* this post is: title is not appropriate for one specific university(?)... Imaginatorium (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems that there's only one of these currently — Nick Jennings (professor) — and he's based at School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton. In time, there will be more — compare Regius Professor of Divinity, for example. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added Southampton to the article. It would have been easy enough to find. Regius chairs are most definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah we keep this sort of thing'. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Regius Professor -- I rarely disagree with most of the above voters, especially when they support a Keep, but on what basis is this post, as opposed to the holder of the post (which is a clear keep), notable? There are many many endowed chairs at major universities where all of the holders have been notable, but very few chairs that are in themselves notable. Some of the Regius Professor chairs certainly are; and the Regius Professor designation as a whole definitely is. But where is there any citation of this chair passing GNG? The citations in the article only have passing mention of this post in a list of 13 new regius professorships that were awarded; the fact that more were created last year than in most centuries might argue against past prestige being inherited to new articles. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was, and still am, mystified as to the *referent* of this article. Is it the notional category of Regius Professor(ship)s in Computer Science? This would seem bizarre, since it is just the productive combination of the two notable categories of Regius Professor(ship) with Computer Science. Or is it just a list of RPs in CS? In which case there is surely no need for a separate page. (I didn't know anything about the 13 RPs, which might indeed merit an article.) I am relatively new to WP editing, and I find distressing the tendency to split off countless "articles" which are unlikely ever to exceed a 1.4-sentence paragraph. Obscure composers get divided up into several pages, one of which amounts to "Second symphony in C major: Allegro, Andante, Presto furioso". Sorry to drift... Imaginatorium Imaginatorium (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to keep articles on named chairs at major universities. The most senior named chairs in British universities are the handful of Regius chairs, so it would make no sense not to have articles on them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this "article" refers to the chair at Southampton, it should surely be titled "RP in CS at Southampton" or similar. And I'm sorry, but I can't accept that the fact that some RPs (no doubt with long and interesting histories, and many worthy incumbents) are worth articles implies that this one is. Of course the information (RP + CS + Soton + Jennings) is notable enough, but would surely be vastly more useful in a list of the 13. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's the only Regius Chair of Computer Science it doesn't need further disambiguation, any more the Disney Professor of Archaeology does, for example. As I said, generally all significant named chairs are considered worthy of articles, and you can't get more significant than a Regius chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per WP:TOOSOON. Unlike some of the other Regius professorships this one has not had time to attract the in-depth coverage (as opposed to brief mention in a list of other new chairs) needed for WP:GNG. And WP:GNG, not WP:PROF, is the correct notability standard, because this is an article about the chair, not about the person in the chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly redirect to its holder. As a professorship created by the Queen, it is certainly notable. However, I may draw an analogy with articles on peerages where there was only ever one holder of the title. There we have an article on the title, but it is a redirect to a bio-article on the only holder. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect - as above. Neutrality^talk 05:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page mirrors those of the more established Regius chairs. Whilst there is only one person to have held this title at the moment, since it was created last year by the monarch, as time passes more will hold this position. hacscience (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the argument runs a bit afoul of "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball". When the chair gets independent notability as other Regius chairs have, it can be recreated, but not yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically an award category, and I don't think that something so recently created could have attained the stature of a Nobel (which is what we hold awards to). See WP:OCAT#Award. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel Prize is too high of an award to be the minimum standard for having a separate award category, but I agree with the general sentiment that it is an award category with a single winner and no independent confirmation of its own notability. I think of it as something like, the Van Cliburn award for piano performance is a notable award in itself. If tomorrow they established a Van Cliburn award for bassoon performance, for clarinet, for timpani, for saxophone, and seven others would all those awards get their own WP pages even if the only press coverage were "Van Cliburn adds eleven new awards for other instruments" because the piano award is notable? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an award. It's a post. The holder hasn't won anything; he's been appointed to a post. It's like saying the President of the United States is an award category; and he has actually won something (i.e. an election)! Saying it's an award shows that the above editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they're actually commenting on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 27 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sídney Gonçalves Freitas[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. ~~Only source is to a fight record.~~ Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No top tier fights, unimpressive record, and no significant independent coverage. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Marín[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was on contested based on the assertion that the Costa Rican top flight is fully pro, an assertion that failed to garner consensus when presented at WT:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I can find in online Costa Rican sources is routine (e.g., match reports). I don't think this article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while there was discussion at WP:FPL about the professionality of the Costa Rican top flight, consensus was not gained that it was either professional, or not, and remains unlisted in either category. However, [8] is quite clear about the professionality of the league. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, as has been made clear to you on several occasions now, the WP:FPL list is considered an inclusive list for NFOOTY purposes; i.e. if a club is on the FPL list it is deemed fully pro, if it is not, for the time being it is not. You are also aware of what to do if you believe a league is fully pro that is not on the list and that WT:FOOTY is the correct arena so all project members can discuss, not a random AfD. Secondly, whilst your source is indicative of FPl status, I note that it is from an article that is nearly 15 years. I would like to see more recent sources indicating a continuing FPL status. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of inclusion at WP:FPL does not mean the league is not fully professional. If it did, then WP:FPL would never get longer ... and yet it does. We have evidence that the league is fully professional, and not one shred of evidence has ever been provided that it isn't. As such, it would be reckless to delete articles on the basis that the league isn't fully professional when all evidence is to the contrary. Costa Rica has a major league, consistently ranked 3rd on the continent after Mexico and the USA, and yet we have no problem accepting Honduras as fully professional (who rank behind Guatemala, El Salvador, and even Panama, which we know isn't fully professional). Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as you have been told several times now, including in this discussion. A random AfD is not the place to start a discussion, WT:FOOTY is so all project members can take part, not just those involved here, as any decision would have consequences far beyond this particular article. Again, as stated many times to you before, just because a league is not on the list does not mean it is not FPL, merely that consensus has not been reached that it is. The standard position of WP:FOOTY is that until such consensus is achieved, the default position is that a league is not FPL. The ranking of a nation is irrelevant, the only relevant issue is has consensus been reached amongst editors, it is not for you to determine your own notability, nor is it for any of us. It is becoming tiresome to have to constantly explain this simple argument to you time and again. If you believe you have evidence that a league is FPL, please start a discussion on the relevant league(s) at WT:FOOTY. If you have sufficient, reliable evidence then the leagues will be added to the list. YOu have been requested to do this before, but I have not yet seen you actually start a thread (though I may well have missed it). Finally, you may wish to redact your claim of "proof" that the league is FPL. One 15 year old article added to your objective conjecture above is unlikely to be considered sufficient. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of members of the 15th Lok Sabha. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the 15th Lok Sabha of India[edit]

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

Because a well structured similar page List of members of the 15th Lok Sabha is already available. So I think this page is meaningless. Prateek Malviya^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, redirect - should be redirected to List of members of the 15th Lok Sabha. This would be a candidate for speedy deletion had it not been created so long ago. Hack (talk) 04:42, 19 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Maguire (footballer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The player has played a game for Sligo Rovers (who are a PROFESSIONAL club). He has also won a cap for his countries' under 19 team. User:Kieran167 23:02, 20 March 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 02:21, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs currently being broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, or TV guide. this information was nonnotable in 2006, and oddly enough is still nonnotable in 2014. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete Could definitely do with some updating (2006?!), and hopefully someone familiar with Norwegian TV could update this...but if it isn't, delete is the only course as an abandoned article. Nate • (chatter) 07:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed to delete per Postdff's finding of the actual 'List of programs' which is well-updated and maintained. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete "Currently broadcast"? That's the job of the Norwegian TV Guide, not us. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually breaking out 'List of programs on 'channel name'' articles is commonplace with network articles (as long as its properly sourced of course); however outright abandonment like this (and oddly, very little 'fantasy TV vandal' activity where someone wants SpongeBob on every network in existence) is very rare. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicative of List of programmes broadcast by TV 2 (Norway); this list was apparently intended just to show what was "currently" being broadcast when it was made in 2006. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate. Even qualifies for Speedy Delete because of this. — Wylie pedia 14:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it can't be speedy deleted as a duplicate per WP:CSD#A10 because it wasn't recently created. postdlf (talk) 16:13, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortyo[edit]

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

Vanity page about a non-notable rapper who has never charted. Of the five sources in the article, two are broken links and the other three merely mention him. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:Musicbio.Iniciativass (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this qualifies as a speedy... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ask for this page to be deleted? Artist has 2 albums out nationwide one which was released on eOne Entertainment (Formerly Koch Records) How is that a Vanity artist??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.7.53 (talk • contribs)

Weak delete Might meet WP:MUSICBIO #5 (I'm not expert with that criteria). However references are non-existent, first one is 404 error, second is irrelevant media company merger news mentioning Shortyo only in passing, rest three are self-published primary sources. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oswal Álvarez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had been named to the bench which does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons mentioned above. Kareldorado (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salami sandwich[edit]

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

A good-faith effort, but it contains no non-trivial information, or even any indication that such information may exist, about salami sandwiches that goes above and beyond what could write about salami and sandwiches separately. Unreferenced; includes original research and suspect advice about using salami to remove crow's feet. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. for obvious reasons. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good nomination rationale. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nice OR essay but WP isn't the place for that. Stalwart111 04:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sandwich article for this[9] and this[10].Iniciativass (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - a combination of two notable subjects (in this case, Salami and Sandwich) does not confer notability, and I don't think that the scholar/book searches really have anything worthwhile. ansh666 04:34, 26 March 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 Midnight Rider (film). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jones (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Article on a deceased 27-y-o camera assistant. Adequate amount of coverage about the circumstances of the death and the APA lobbying efforts, but the article suffers from several problems, including a eulogistic tone. What little biographical material in the article has been directly copied from an anonymous bio on imdb (who writes this shit anyway, and where's the editorial control?). Her death was tragic and the result of inconsiderate/incompetent planning an execution of a film shoot that raised some questions as to safety, but it nevertheless seems to be just another case of a person being known for only one event, and I don't think having an 'im memoriam' tribute confers notability.

The incident has two paragraphs in the article about the film she was involved in when she died. Ohc ^¡digame! 02:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midnight Rider (film). Her death got a surprising amount of coverage, but it looks like a pretty clear WP:BLP1E. Right now, the article on her last film covers this quite in depth, and I'd argue it's already approaching the level of WP:UNDUE. If something comes of her death, that will satisfy WP:LASTING, but I think it's too early to claim notability for the event. With both the person and the event failing to conclusively demonstrate notability, I suggest a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pasing notice (no even notability) for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 21 March 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 and protect. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructures[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Unreferenced, unsigned band with no albums or singles released by a notable label. The creator of the article has a conflict of interest as they are one of the founders of the band.

I had previously reverted the article, but after the fifth revert by the creator, I am bringing the article to AfD. The article was previously a redirect to Infrastructure. Should this discussion result in finding that the band is not notable enough for inclusion, I am requesting that the outcome of the AfD be a restoration of the article back to the redirect instead of a delete to restore the status quo. The previous redirect is linked to be multiple articles, so the redirect is beneficial. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect - nothing to suggest this passes WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Stalwart111 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and redirect to Infrastructure. Protect if necessary. Notability is not even asserted for this band. No claims for passing WP:BAND. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band, restore the redirect, and protect. There is no reason for this to point anywhere else or contain any other content, absent a discussion reaching consensus to that effect. bd2412 T 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the nominator is explicitly not requesting deletion, this should not have been brought to AfD. If you want a page protected, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; even if this AfD closes with a resolution to redirect and protect, it would still need to go through the WP:RFP process, so this is just wasting time. I'd close this as speedy keep but one !vote above does say "delete" so I can't really say no arguments for deletion have been presented. BTW, page protection is kind of the nuclear option; since there's only one COI editor involved, it is probably a better idea to pursue a block against them. — Gwalla | Talk 21:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not that out-of-process is it? The article was deleted twice as A7 but was recreated and then it was blanked/redirected (rather than delete/redirected) after that. Its not really necessary for the article to go through the RFPP process in addition to AFD is it? Plenty of AFD's close as delete/WP:SALT and the titles are protected against recreation - wouldn't this be the same. In this case, the redirect would be protected to prevent recreation. That would just be at the discretion of the closing admin, yeah? If someone wants to recreate it they can take it to DRV and they have an AFD as a reference-point. Stalwart111 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started at WP:RFPP but withdrew the request after the fifth revert and started the AfD. I withdrew the RFPP because if the reviewing admin there protected the "wrong version" and left the article as was about the band, I couldn't revert it back because of 3RR. The band member edits did not fall under any of the 3RR exemptions as they were made in good faith, so I couldn't continue reverting as this is fundamentally a content dispute. I didn't think it would be a good idea to ask the RFPP admin to revert the page and then semi-protect the RFPP admins are supposed to not get involved in content disputes. I didn't want to put the RFPP admin in a position of being involved in a content dispute and then using the tools to "win" the dispute. That is also why I didn't revert and apply semi-protection myself, delete the article, or block the band member. So I thought about what I could do to the article to get it back to the status quo:

I can't keep reverting it.
I didn't think deleting it myself under CSD A7 and restoring the two edits from 2004/2008 like StephenBuxton did since I was involved (using a broad reading of involved).
I thought PRODing it would probably result in the PROD being removed by the band member since it obvious they are trying really hard to get it published, so that was going to be worthless. And then I'd also have to explain to the reviewing admin that I wanted a partial delete and hope they noticed.
I could have CSD A7 tagged it and hoped that the reviewing admin would restore the two redirect edits like StephenBuxton did, but again how would I guarantee that? And the band member would likely just resume overwriting the redirect since he already did it once before (though I hadn't noticed this fact until after I started the AfD).

So I decided to take it to AfD because then a clear community consensus could be established that the article about the band doesn't belong here at this time. The band member would then be unable to continue overwriting the redirect without going against community consensus. Those subsequent edits could then be acted upon through appropriate means. I felt this article was a gray area because the article was previously a redirect. If it had been some standalone article, I would have deleted the article myself under CSD A7 like the thousands of band articles I've deleted before, protected the article from recreation, and have been done with this. Should I have done it anyways? Maybe, but I thought it would still be better to get a community consensus instead acting solely on my own because of the past history as a redirect. Sorry for being long-winded, but I wanted to explain my thought process for this admittedly unusual AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics of repressed memory[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic fork of Repressed memory by new user. Named 'Forensics of repressed memory' is appears to be a how-to manual, something wikipedia is explicitly not. There are a number of references, but none of them appear to be clearly about the 'forensics of repressed memory' raising the prospect of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm of the position that this is a potentially encyclopedia topic, but, while this article includes references (although in an unorthodox way, by Wikipedia standards), it appears to be almost entirely WP:OR, as though the author selected Wikipedia as a vehicle of publication. I note that the author has no editing experience at Wikipedia prior to the creation of this article, and is likely merely not yet well-versed in the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. I would delete without prejudice to creation of an article on this subject that is limited to consolidating published information from reliable sources; rather than original research synthesized from it. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no original research in the article, and no synthesis. This article contains only a compilation of existing research on the topic, cited throughout the article. This is a hot topic (as noted by several state supreme court cases in the US, England and other areas), where this side of the issue is only now beginning to be hotly debated. Within 18 months this subject will be of major importance to the general public. It is an area where the public needs access to this information, and where virtually no non-pay sources exist for it (over $500 in article fees were spent to get the secondary source material used to write the first draft). While it is true that I have no idea how the citation system works, other editors can convert the citations.

If you don't like the tone used, edit it to better fit. The basic scientific information is in the article as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.226.254 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users editing in areas where much of the content is behind paywalls are reminded of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange which is commonly of help in such situations. Additionally a significant proportion of editors have access to university libraries. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seeing how these cases are investigated is very useful. That their are was of corroborating a story was very helpful to learn. The article was obviously written by someone that knows the subject matter, but doesn't know the wikipedia style of writing. But that is not reason to delete any article. It is reason for other editors to contribute to making it a better article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.212.114 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a CJ student and this article is by far the best resource I have found on this topic. Clear, straight forward and unbiased. This takes the middle ground in a contentious topic, and that's hard to do in this subject. The discussion on methods of corroboration are extremely hard to find, let alone find done as well as this was. Way to useful to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to have gotten a "Start" rating from the WikiProject Law. According to the project guidelines, the article should not be subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I exported it to v:Forensics of repressed memory, and any potentially dangerous material there may be deleted. note: The ip addresses come from the same general location, I suggest to be careful not to recruit. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not be surprised to see others from my class showing up here. This is one of the research topics we could choose from, and this article was approved as a source (we generally can not use wikipedia as a source). Its loss would not be a happy day in my class for anyone doing a repressed memory project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on this class that's using this as a source? I can find no references to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY: this isn't the type of thing that should be in an encyclopedia. @IPs, that it's useful has no bearing here, and it's been exported per Sidelight now anyways. ansh666 04:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page, per the merge suggestion below. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rotana Cinema[edit]

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

Non-notable tv channel Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the other articles, this would probably be best merged into Rotana Group Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it says under the Broadcast media section that 'Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios' Rotana channels are the biggest network channels in the middle east, they own the exclusive rights to over 1000 Egyptian movies, and if you search for Egyptian movie industry you'll find that Egypt is the biggest movie maker in this region, and for a channel to own the exclusive rights to its heritage is a huge thing, I've included a couple of links that backup what I'm saying, I apologize if I'm not doing this right but I'm fairly new here so bare with me, thank you. Kareemmaghraby (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlJazeera on Rotana Movies Acquision American Chamber of Commerce Egypt on Rotana Acquisition of Egyptian movies

Comment And that's why we would redirect them to the parent company's article until there's enough to support stand-alone articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 5 March 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:08, 10 March 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, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two other similar articles were merged in based on AfD discussions. I intend to merge this article as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotana Classic‎‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotana Aflam‎‎. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 23 March 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) 01:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic consciousness[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH issues. Where appropriate, content could be merged into collective unconscious, but I don't actually see anything worth keeping. Instead we have a hodgepodge of unrelated proposals relating to Jungian psychoanalysis and esoteric theologies. Actually, this is a classic instance of original research. jps (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article due to lack of reliable references but redirect "Cosmic Consciousness" to Richard Maurice Bucke, he was the inventor of the term and the only notable author on the topic. The term may be useful for those looking for his book. Goblin Face (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Synthesis and OR are editorial issues, separate from any question of notability. The term has established itself in common parlance, not just through Bucke but Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Stanislav Grof, Olivia Robertson, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and others. There seems to be potential here for an article. The topic itself is as encyclopedic as any other religious/spiritual concept already on WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people use two words in succession doesn't mean that this is a recognized term or that they are all talking about the same thing. There is no potential for an article because there is no agreement as to what the subject actually is. There are only different people who use the term to mean different things and we can't throw them all together without violating WP:SYNTH. It is impossible to write an encyclopedic article on this subject which conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. Original research has always been a legitimate reason to delete an article. jps (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Not a recognized term? Not recognized by whom? I think there are a great many people indeed who do recognize it. See, for instance, the list in the article of closely related or synonymous terms. Deleting the article also would delete the material about Bucke's theory of stages of development of consciousness, a novel (at that time) concept and one that is significant for metaphysics and religion. Instead of being deleted, this article should be supported by a separate article about Bucke's book. Wahrmund (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Classic work by Bucke. Tons of references to it in the literature. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is clearly the subject of significant coverage in many reliable secondary asources (in literally hundreds of books, including one by noted scholar Camille Paglia already in the article). Problems can be fixed through the normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly relevant; compare William James' "Varieties of Religious experience". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And have a look at Higher consciousness for even worse... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The term is used by Michio Kaku in Parallel Worlds. From page 145: "To answer this question, physicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watched over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes." --Cei Trei (talk) 23:59, 23 March 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) ansh666 22:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Hargreaves III[edit]

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

This person clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football. He is still an amateur, a very good one, but has yet to play in a professional game.

Keep College football players can be notable too. A google search would prove he has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Yankees10 00:41, 11 March 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 March 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually all about voting delete on run-of-the-mill BCS players, but it appears this one is notable (best HS cornerback, first-team SEC as frosh) per WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSPORTS is superseded by WP:GNG. Amateurs can be notable. See Tyler Beede, Jeff Hoffman, Trea Turner for a few baseball examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What I see here is an exception to the basic rule--clearly enough press coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 24 March 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.